IMAGE  EVALUATION 
TEST  TARGET  (MT-3) 


1.0 


I.I 


1.25 


Ui  |M    |2.S 
2.2 


2.0 


^  11^ 


6' 


Hiotographic 

Sciences 
Corporation 


# 


iV 


^>^ 


6^ 


23  WEST  MAIN  !>V)kEET 

WEBSTER,  N.Y.  M580 

(716)  872-4503 


'%'■ 


CIHM/ICMH 

Microfiche 

Series. 


CIHM/ICIVIH 
Collection  de 
microfiches. 


Canadian  Institute  for  Historical  IVIicroreproductions 


Institut  Canadian  de  microreproductions  historiques 


1980 


Technical  and  Bibliographic  Notes/Note*  techniques  et  bibliographiques 


The  Institute  has  attempted  to  obtain  the  best 
original  copy  available  for  filming.  Features  of  this 
copy  which  may  be  bibliographically  unique, 
which  may  alter  any  of  the  images  in  the 
reproduction,  or  which  may  significantly  change 
the  usual  method  of  filming,  are  checited  below. 


a 


n 


D 


n 


Coloured  covers/ 
Couverture  de  couleur 


I      I    Covers  damaged/ 


Couverture  endommagie 

Covers  restored  and/or  laminated/ 
Couverture  restaurie  et/ou  pelliculAe 

Cover  title  missing/ 

Le  titre  de  couverture  manque 

Coloured  maps/ 

Cartes  g^ographiques  en  couleur 


□    Coloured  ink  (i.e.  other  than  blue  or  biacit)/ 
Encre  de  couleur  (I.e.  autre  que  bleue  ou  noire) 

□    Coloured  plates  and/or  illustrations/ 
rii 


Planches  et/ou  illustrations  en  couleur 


Bound  with  other  material/ 
Reli6  avec  d'autres  document? 


Tight  binding  may  cause  shadows  or  distortion 
along  interior  margin/ 

La  reliure  serrde  peut  causer  de  I'ombre  ou  de  la 
distortion  le  long  de  la  marge  int^rieure 

Blank  leaves  added  during  restoration  may 
appear  within  the  text.  Whenever  possible,  these 
have  been  omitted  from  filming/ 
II  se  peut  que  certaines  pages  blanches  ajouties 
lors  d'une  restauration  apparaissent  dans  le  texte, 
mais.  lorsque  cela  itait  possible,  ces  pages  n'ont 
pas  6t6  filmies. 

Additional  comments:/ 
Commentaires  supplimentaires; 


L'institut  a  microfilm^  le  meilleur  exemplaire 
qu'il  lui  a  At*  possible  de  se  procurer.  Les  details 
de  cet  exemplaire  qui  sont  peut-Atre  uniques  du 
point  de  vue  bibliographique,  qui  peuvent  modifier 
une  image  reproduite,  ou  qui  peuvent  exiger  une 
modification  dans  la  methods  normaie  de  filmage 
sont  indiquAs  ci-dessous. 


I      I   Coloured  pages/ 


Pages  de  couleur 

Pages  damaged/ 
Pages  endommagtes 

Pages  restored  and/oi 

Pages  restaurdes  et/ou  pellicul6es 

Pages  discoloured,  stained  or  foxei 
Pages  dicolor^es,  tachetdes  ou  piquAes 


I      I   Pages  damaged/ 

r~~|   Pages  restored  and/or  laminated/ 

I      I   Pages  discoloured,  stained  or  foxed/ 


□    Pages  detached/ 
Pages  d^tachdes 

[~y|    Showthrough/ 
Li^J   Transparence 

r~~|   Quality  of  print  varies/ 


D 


Quality  in6gale  de  I'impression 

Includes  supplementary  material/ 
Comprend  du  materiel  suppliSmentaire 

Only  edition  available/ 
Seule  Mition  disponible 


T» 
to 


Pages  wholly  or  partially  obscured  by  errata 
slips,  tissues,  etc.,  have  been  refilmed  to 
ensure  the  best  possible  image/ 
Les  pages  totalement  ou  partiellement 
obscurcies  par  un  feuillet  d'errata,  une  pelure, 
etc.,  ont  6ti  fiim^es  d  nouveau  de  fapon  d 
obtenir  la  meilleure  image  possible. 


Tr 

PC 
of 
fil 


Oi 
b« 
th 
si( 
ot 
fir 
sk 
or 


Th 
sh 
Til 
wl 

M< 
dh 
en 
be 
rig 
re( 
m( 


This  item  is  filmed  at  the  reduction  ratio  checked  below/ 

Ce  document  est  film*  au  taux  d£  rMuction  indiquA  ci-dessous. 

10X  14X  18X  22X 


y 


12X 


ItX 


20X 


26X 


30X 


24X 


28X 


32X 


Th«  copy  filmad  h«r«  ha*  b««n  r«produc«d  thanks 
to  tha  ganarosity  of: 

Douglas  Library 
Quaan's  Univarsity 

Tha  imagas  appaaring  hara  ara  tha  bast  quality 
possibia  considaring  tha  condition  and  lagibility 
of  tha  original  copy  and  in  kaaping  with  tha 
filming  contract  spacifications. 


Original  copias  in  printad  papar  covars  ara  filmad 
baginning  with  tha  front  covar  and  anding  on 
tha  last  paga  with  a  printad  or  illuatratad  impras- 
slon,  or  tha  back  covar  whan  appropriata.  All 
othar  original  copias  ara  filmad  baginning  on  tha 
first  paga  with  a  printad  or  illuatratad  impras- 
sion,  and  anding  on  tha  laat  paga  with  a  printad 
or  illuatratad  impraaaion. 


Tha  last  racordad  frama  on  aach  microflcha 
shall  contain  tha  symbol  -^(meaning  "CON- 
TINUED"), or  tha  symbol  V  (moaning  "END"), 
whichavar  applias. 

Maps,  platas,  charts,  ate,  may  ba  filmad  at 
diffarent  raduction  ratios.  Thosa  too  larga  to  ba 
antiraly  includad  in  ona  axposura  ara  filmad 
baginning  In  tha  uppar  laft  hand  cornar,  laft  to 
right  and  top  to  bottom,  as  many  framas  as 
raquirad.  The  following  diagrams  illustrata  tha 
mathod: 


L'axamplaira  film*  fut  raproduit  grAca  k  la 
g*n*rositA  da: 

Douglas  Library 
Queen's  University 

Laa  imagas  suivantaa  ont  MA  raproduitas  avac  la 
plua  grand  soin,  compta  tanu  da  la  condition  at 
da  la  nattatA  da  I'axempiaira  filmA.  et  en 
conformitA  avac  les  conditions  du  contrat  da 
filmaga. 

Laa  axampiairaa  originaux  dont  la  couvarture  en 
papiar  est  imprimAa  sont  filmAs  an  commengant 
par  la  premier  plat  et  en  terminant  soit  par  la 
darnlAre  paga  qui  comporte  uno  empreinte 
d'impression  ou  d'illustration,  soit  par  la  second 
plat,  aaioii  ie  cas.  Tous  les  autres  exemplaires 
originaux  sont  filmAs  en  commenpant  par  la 
pramlAre  paga  qui  comporte  une  empreinte 
d'impression  ou  d'illustration  et  en  terminant  par 
la  darniAre  page  qui  comporte  une  telle 
empreinte. 

Un  dee  symbolas  suivants  apparaftra  sur  la 
darniAre  image  de  cheque  microfiche,  selon  Ie 
cas:  la  symbole  -^  signifie  "A  SUIVRE",  Ie 
symbols  V  signifie  "FIN". 

Les  cartas,  planches,  tableaux,  etc..  peuvent  Atre 
fiimAa  A  das  taux  de  rAduction  diffArents. 
Lorsque  Ie  document  est  trop  grand  pour  Atre 
reproduit  en  un  seul  ciichA,  il  est  filmA  A  partir 
de  Tangle  supArieur  gauche,  de  gauche  A  droite. 
et  de  haut  an  bas,  en  prenant  la  nombre 
d'images  nAcessaire.  Les  diagrammes  suivants 
illustrant  la  mAthoda. 


1 

2 

3 

[ 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

y^i 


\ 


Origin  and  Development 


.OP  THE.. 


NICENE   THEOLOGY 


WITH  SOME  REFERENCE 

TO  THE  RITSCHLIAN  VIEW  OF  THEOLOGY 

AND  HISTORY  OF  DOCTRINE. 


g^ctnvc^ 


Delivered  on  the  L.  P.  Stone  Foundation  at  Princeton  Theological 
Seminary,  in  January,  1896. 


..  BY .. 


HUGH  M.  SCOTT,  D.D., 

Professor  of  Ecclesiastical  History  in  Chicago  Theological  Seminary. 


CHICAGO: 

Chicago  Theological  Seminary  Press, 

81  Ashland  Boulevard. 

1896. 


IbTTS.S^ 


ENTERED  ACCORDING  TO  ACT  OF  CONGRESS, 
IN  THE   YEAR   1896, 

BY 

THE  CHICAGO  THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY  PRESS, 

IN  THE  OFFICE  OF  THE  LIBRARIAN  OF  CONGRESS, 

AT  WASHINGTON,  D.  C. 


TCo 

The  Reverend  William  Henry  Green,  D.D.,  LL.D., 

HELENA  professor  OF  ORIENTAL  AND  OLD  TESTAMENT  LITERATURE 

IN   THE 

THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY  OF  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCH  AT  PRINCETON.  N.  J.. 

Ubesc  Xccturcs 

ARE  RESPECTFULLY  DEDICATED  IN   PERSONAL  AFFECTION. 

AND  AS  A  SLIGHT  CONTRIBUTION  TOWARD  THE  CELEBRATION  OF  THE  FIFTIETH 

ANNIVERSARY  OF  HiS  APPOINTMENT  AS  INSTRUCTOR  IN  THE  SEi^INARY. 

"As  I  was  with  Moses,  so  I  will  be  with  thee."    (josh.  i.  S.) 


The 

Despialnes 

Press 

p.  r.  Pcttlbone  &  Co. 

Chicago 


PREFACE. 


These  Lectures,  written  at  the  request  of  the 
Faculty  of  Princeton  Theological  Seminary,  have  in 
view  especially  students  of  divinity  and  young  min- 
isters. For  thib  reason  they  present  the  origin  and 
development  of  the  Logos  Christology  with  frequent 
reference  to  negative  criticism — chief  of  all  that  of 
the  school  of  Ritschl — which  is  most  likely  now  to 
persuade  students  that  the  articles  of  their  faith  rest 
upon  a  very  unsubstantial  foundation.  Through  the 
influence  of  such  scholars  as  Schultz,  Herrmann,  Har- 
nack,  Wendt  and  Kaftan,  whose  lectures  not  a  few 
American  students  have  attended  and  whose  chief 
works  have  appeared  or  are  appearing  in  English, 
the  agnostic,  positivistic  temper,  which  attacks  the 
most  precious  doctrines  of  Christianity  as  essentially 
pagan,  is  making  itself  felt  more  and  more  among 
us. 

I  may  be  permitted  to  say  that  my  own  student 
life  and  my  professional  duties  have  brought  me  into 
close  contact  with  this  new  theology  of  Germany 
which  in  its  historical  investigations  works  such 
havoc  with  the  beliefs  of  the  Church.  During  my 
first  year  in  Germany  I  heard  the  liberal  conservative 
teachings  of  Dorner  and  Dillmann  in  Berlin.  At  the 
beginning  of  a  three  years'  course  in  Leipzig,  as  long 

I 


ii 


PREFACE. 


ago  as  1878,  I  heard  Professor  Harnack,  side  by  side 
with  such  orthodox  veterans  as  Luthardt,  Kahnis,  and 
Delitzsch,  when  that  brilliant  young  teacher  began 
his  career.  Later  visits  to  Germany  and  Switzerland 
enabled  me  to  "interview"  such  friends  and  ac- 
quaintances as  Lechler,  Delitzsch,  Gregory,  Victor 
Schultze,  Harnack,  Kaftan,  Riggenbach,  Overbeck, 
Stahelin,  Biedermann  and  Schweitzer,  not  to  speak  of 
occasional  lectures  heard  from  Loofs,  Kostlin,  Zahn, 
Volkmar,  Kaftan,  Pfleiderer  and  others.  The  refer- 
ences to  the  literature,  given  in  the  course  of  the  fol- 
lowing discussions,  will  show  that  I  have  carefully 
sought  to  learn  from  men  of  all  schools  the  truth 
discovered  by  them  respecting  "our  Lord  and  His 
Christ." 

In  matters  of  historic  detail,  of  literary  research, 
of  brilliant  suggestion,  every  student  of  the  early 
Church  must  acknowledge  the  greatest  indebtedness 
to  Harnack  and  men  of  his  school.  But  it  is  this 
very  ability  and  fruitfulness  of  investigation,  which, 
put  in  the  service  of  a  defective  theory  of  Christian- 
ity and  its  doctrines,  force  upon  those  who  reject  such 
a  theory  the  somewhat  ungracious  task  of  opposing 
so  frequently  men  from  whom  they  have  learned  so 
much.  The  systematic,  but  radical  views  of  Ritschl 
on  revelation,  the  character  of  Christ  as  found  in  the 
Scriptures,  and  the  rights  of  reason  in  theology,  so 
color  all  the  doctrinal  thinking  of  the  school  that,  at 
every  turn  in  the  historical  or  logical  movement  of 
religious  thought,  it  becomes  necessary  for  men  of 
other  schools  to  plant  a  caveat 

In  one  respect  especially,  must  we  recognize  the 
great  advance  made  in  the  method  of  treatment  of 


PREFACE. 


Ill 


early  Christian  doctrine  by  Nitzsch,  Thomasius  and 
Harnack.  I  refer  to  the  central  position  given  to 
Christology.  Not  only  is  the  old  division  of  gen- 
eral and  special  History  of  Doctrine  abolished,  but 
the  teachings  of  the  early  Church,  as  a  whole,  are 
found  to  receive  their  proper  light  and  perspective 
only  when  set  in  immediate  relation  to  the  God-Man. 
"What  think  ye  of  Christ?"  is  the  testing  inquiry 
to  be  put  to  all  doctrines  as  well  as  to  all  men.  From 
this  point  of  view  these  Lectures  have  been  written. 
They  treat  the  Nicene  Theology,  in  genesis  and 
growth,  as  it  sets  forth  or  shadows  the  Person  and 
work  of  the  Divine  Christ.  It  is  just  jealousy  for 
'his  cardinal  doctrine,  which  leads  us  not  only  to  give 
it  everywhere,  as  did  the  early  Church,  the  first 
place,  but  which  requires  us  so  often  to  notice  the 
parallel  treatment  of  it  by  the  school  of  Ritschl, 
which  puts  the  Logos  Christology  at  the  heart  of 
doctrinal  development,  though  not  as  the  spirit  of 
life  and  truth,  but  as  the  leaven  of  the  Pharisees, 
the  principle  of  secularization  and  error. 

Various  influences  at  work  in  American  religious 
circles  make  the  ajiproach  of  this  "undogmatic 
Christianity"  especially  dangerous  just  now.  We 
are  a  practical  people;  and  are  apt  to  be  caught 
by  a  theology  which  presents  primitive  Christianity 
as  an  "impression"  and  not  a  doctrine.  We  are 
a  people  in  a  hurry ;  and  too  many  of  our  pastors,  and 
even  teachers,  are  inclined  to  run  after  a  "  simj)le 
gospel"  or  "  evangelical  theology"  rather  than  take  the 
trouble  to  study  a  whole  body  of  doctrine.  We  are 
a  restive,  democratic  people;  and  the  word  "  dogma" 
has   a   harsh,  priestly  sound,  an  autocratic  claim  to 


iv 


PREFACE. 


III! 


authority,  all  of  which  may  turn  some  minds  toward 
the  "  practical "  views  of  the  new  theology.  The  ap- 
peals "  Back  to  Christ,"  the  claim  to  represent  "the 
historic  Christ,"  the  play  upon  "the  consciousness  of 
Christ" — though  there  is  little  new  in  all  these  to 
English-speaking  Christians — are  often  an  "  Open 
sesame  "  for  these  foreign  teachings.  Then,  the  new 
science  of  "Christian  Sociology,"  which  makes  the 
Church  instituti'onal,  and  emphasizes  "  environment " 
as  well  as  "  heredity,"  by  its  teachings  about  the 
Kingdom  of  God — though  it  be  from  quite  another 
point  of  view — prepares  the  way  for  Ritschl's  the- 
ology of  Christ  and  the  Church.  When  to  these  we 
add  the  fact  that  historic  theology  is  probably  the 
weakest  department  in  the  ordinary  pastor's  outfit — 
Ritschl  claimed  it  was  the  strongest  of  his  possessions 
— we  may  appreciate  the  better  the  danger  for  us  of 
this  new  school,  and  its  corrosive  treatment  of  the 
doctrines  of  early  Christianity.  "  If  the  foundations 
be  destroyed,  what  can  the  righteous  do? " 

So  far  as  I  know,  these  Lectures  are  the  first  at- 
tempt in  English  to  outline  the  growth  of  the  Nicene 
theology,  with  any  real  reference  to  the  work  of  the 
school  of  Ritschl.  They  are  sent  forth  with  a  due 
sense  of  the  vastness  of  the  undertaking  and  the  con- 
stant danger  of  misinterpreting  facts  or  doing  injustice 
to  men.  But  such  a  work  was  called  for;  and, 
though  with  much  hesitation,  I  undertook  the  task. 
I  am  glad  in  this  connection  to  remember  that  not  a 
few  of  the  dangers  of  this  whole  inquiry  have  been 
indirectly  anticipated  and  obviated  already  in  Pro- 
fessor Allen's  work  on  The  Continuity  of  Christian 
Thottght  {lSS4i).    I  do  not  agree  with  that  writer's 


PREFACE. 


condemnation  of  Latin  theology;  but  what  he  8ays  of 
the  "Greek  theology"  in  it8  great  outlines,  and  his 
discussion  in  general,  is  one  of  the  best  bits  of  work 
done  in  this  generation  by  an  American  on  the 
history  of  Christian  doctrine.  May  it  serve  more  and 
more  as  an  antidote  against  the  attempts  to  take  away 
our  Lord  as  a  product  of  Hellenism. 

In  the  many  references  to  the  Sources  and  to  Ger- 
man works,  I  have  deemed  it  best  to  trans!  nt^  nearly 
all  quotations;  partly  because  the  originals,  e^^t'jcially 
German  periodical  literature,  are  not  alwa}3  readily 
accessible;  and  partly  because  not  a  ^  .tie  of  the 
Ritschlianli.'3rature  is  written  in  a  style  and  tenuinol- 
ogy  which  call  for  more  than  one  or  two  vcirs'  study 
of  uerman  in  orderto  understand  their  mean  in  ir 

The  limitations  of  these  Lectures  left  far  more 
material  in  my  hands  than  is  contained  in  this 
volume.  In  the  notes  a  few  selections  have  been 
added  in  support  and  elucidation  of  the  statements  in 
the  text.  Occasionally  slight  repetitions  occur;  but 
for  pedagogical  reasons  it  seemed  well  to  allow  these 
to  stand. 

In  conclusion,  I  desire  to  express  my  gratitude  to 
the  Faculty  and  students  of  Princeton  Theological 
Seminary  for  their  hearty  appreciation,  approval  and 
encouragement  during  the  delivery  of  these  Lectures. 

Hugh  M.  Soott. 
Chioaqo,  July,  1896. 


CONTENTS. 


LECTURE  I. 
Critical  and  Biblical  Prolegomena  to  the  Development 

OF  THE   NiCENE    TlIEOLOGY    OF  THE    DiVINE    ClIRIST.      What 

ChriBtianity  is.  The  issues  Involved  in  the  Nicene  Theologv 
Monistic  and  Ritschl  Schools.  Inevitable  Decay  of  Unitari- 
anism.  Divine  Christ  central.  Historical  argument.  Deism 
and  the  Neo-Kantian  theology.  Christ's  consciousness  of 
Uiinself.  \  arious  estimates  of  the  same.  Titles  of  Christ 
Christ  and  the  Kosmos.  Christ  and  the  Kingdom.  Christ 
n°^  ,  r*  w'^^™  •°*-  Christ  and  Missions.  The  Apostles  and 
Chris  .    Worship  of  Christ.    The  Apostles  and  Revelation  of 


PAGE 


LECTURE  IL 

Laying  the  Foundations  op  the  Nicene  Theology,  center 
iNG  IN  the  Divine  Christ,    and  in  opposition  to  Pagan 

CULTURE     represented    RY    GnoSTICIS.M,    UNTIL  THE    FviTH 

OF  THE  Church  was  settled  hy  the  Anti-Gng.tic  Theo- 
logians upon  a  New  Testament  Basis.  Christ  and  the 
Fullness  of  time.  Christian  philosophy  of  history.  Chris- 
tianity and  Natural  Theology.     Hermann  and  Natural  Theol- 

S.  r^'!    *°?.  ^''''"'  Christianity.    Hellenistic  Judaism. 
Early  Christian  Literature.    New  Testament  Theologv    and 
History  of    Doctrin..    Theology  of   the  Apostolic  Fathers 
Conflict  with  Gnosticism.    Teachings  of  Gnosticism.     Errors' 
tiLm     thT;.   ^'r""'"'  ""^  Tertull!.n.    Results  of  Gnos- 

tii  n;    ^J'\^^"«V°*^  '''  ^"'^  °^  ^^^*^-    The  Church  and 
the  New  Testament  Scriptures. 

LECTURE  in. 

Development  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Divine  Christ  lt-on 
the  ground  of  the  Christian  Tradition,  Use  of  The 
Old  Testament,  Contact  with  Greek  Thought.  AtJejI 

vU 


65 


Vlll 


CONTENTS. 


TO  THE  Collected  New  Testament,  and  Opposition  to 
Heresy.  Christology  and  Judaism.  Mystery  of  the  Incarna- 
tion. Expectation  of  a  Mediator  among  Jews  and  Oreelss. 
The  Memra  and  the  Logos.  The  Christian  Logos  idea.  Chris- 
tianity of  the  Apostolic  Fathers.  "  Adoption  "  and  "  Pneu- 
matic" Christology.  Logos  doctrine  of  the  Apologists,  of 
Irenaeus,  of  the  Monarchians.  The  Christology  of  the  Alex- 
andrian School.  Post-Origeuistic  teachings.  Arianism. 
Post-Nicene  Christology.       -  -  .  .  . 

LECTURE  IV. 

Imperfect  Apprehension  of  the  Divine  Christ  in  His  Work 
OF  Salvation,  and,  connected  therewith,  an  inadequate 
VIEW  OF  Sin,  a  defective  theory  op  Free-Will,  and  the 
consequent  growth  of  Legalism,  Sacerdotalism  and 
Asceticism  in  the  Early  Catholic  Church.  Soteriology  of 
the  Greek  Church  chiefly  Johannine.  Baptismal  Regenera- 
tion. Consequent  Legalism.  Loss  of  Pauline  view  of  justifi- 
cation by  faith.  Reason  of  this.  Greek  view  of  sin.  Its 
relation  to  free  will,  to  Adam.  Its  ignorance  and  weakness. 
Views  of  Origen  and  Athanaaius.  Fatalism  and  free  will. 
Human  ability.  Non-reality  of  evil.  Reference  of  sin  to 
Satan.  Christology  and  views  of  guilt.  The  Apologists  and 
the  doctrine  of  Redemption.  Salvation  according  to  Irenaeus, 
Origen  and  Athanasius.  Influence  of  Athanasius.  Hindrance 
of  the  Church  system,  of  sacraments,  of  Gnostic  and  ascetic 
ideas.  ....... 

LECTURE  V. 

Tee  Doctrine  of  the  Holy  Spirit  and  the  Trinity  as  neces- 
sarily involved  in  that  op  God  and  the  Divine  Christ. 
The  Apostolic  Church  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  What  this  meant. 
Ritschl  view  of  the  Spirit.  Monist  doctrine  of  the  Spirit. 
The  Spirit  in  history  of  doctrine.  Deposit  of  this  doctrine 
received  from  New  Testament  Church.  Change  in  the  view 
of  the  Spirit  right.  The  Apostolic  Fathers  and  the  Spirit. 
The  Spirit  and  the  Incarnation.  The  Apologists  and  the 
Spirit.  Effects  of  controversies  upon  the  doctrine  of  the 
Spirit.  Ebionites  and  Gnostics.  The  Fourth  Gospel  and  the 
Spirit.  Montanism,  Monarchianism  and  the  Spirit.  The  Spirit 
and  Trinity  in  the  anti-Gnostic  Fathers,  in  Origen  and  Athan- 
asius. Reasons  for  the  incidental  references  to  the  Spirit  in 
the    theology  of  the  first  three  centuries.     Conception  of 


PAOB 


135 


195 


CONTENTS. 


k 


Christ  by  the  Spirit  and  Pereonality  of  the  Spirit  as  found  in 
the  earliest  Creed.  Elaboration  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Spirit 
by  Nicene  and  post-Nicene  theologians.  ThJs  doctrine  not  a 
product  of  Hellenism.         -  -  .  .  . 

LECTURE  VI. 

The  Doctrine  op  the' Divine  Chuist  in  its  relation  to  the 
Rule  of  Faith  and  to  Dogma.  Christ  and  the  baptismal 
formula.  What  this  formula  was.  Its  history.  First  bap- 
tismal confession.  Its  contents.  Testimony  of  the  Apostolic 
Fathers.  The  first  Creed.  Harnack's  view  of  "  only  begot- 
ten" Son  and  "Father  "in  this  Creed.  Apologists  ar  i  the 
Creed.  Irenaeus,  TertuUian,  and  the  "  Rule  of  Faith."  The 
Creed  and  the  Scriptures.  Theological  exposition  of  the  Rule 
of  Faith.  Letter  of  the  Bishop  of  Jerusalem.  The  Creed  not 
Hellenized.  Council  of  Nictea  and  Christology.  R"  echl 
criticism  of  Logos  Christology.  Reply.  Test  of  doctrinal 
truth.  Faith  and  knowledge.  Christ  and  Christology,  doc- 
trine and  life  Inseparable.  Reasons  for  a  dogmatic  statement 
at  Nicflea.  Two  views  of  dogma— both  defective.  False 
•Itemative  set  by  Hatch.    Conclualon. 


paob 


253 


818 


LECTURE  I. 


drificaf  and  BiBficaf  {►rofc^omcna  to  f§g  !E>e&<jfopmenf  of  f§< 


"For  other  foundation  can  no  man  lay  than  that  is  laid, 
which  is  Jesus  Christ."    Paul,  I  Cor.  iii.  11. 


"  Non  potes  dicere:  si  natus  fuisset  et  hominem  vere  in- 
duisset,  deus  esse  desisset,  amittens  quod  erat,  dum  adsurait 
quod  non  erat.      Periculum  enira  status  sui  deo  nullum  est." 

Tertullian,  De  Came  ChrisH,  c.  3. 


"Lieber  Herr  Jesu  Christ*,  bereite,  starke  and  befestige  una 
vollends  zu  deinem  ewigen  Reich,  mit  aller  Fiille  deiner  Weis- 
heit  und  Erkenntniss.  Dir  sei  Lob  und  Dank  in  Ewigkeit. 
Amen. "  A  Prayer  of  Luther . 


"  O  Lord  and  Master  of  us  all! 
Whate'er  our  name  or  sign, 
We  own  Thy  sway,  we  hear  Thy  call, 
We  test  our  lives  by  Thine." 

Whittier,  in  *'Our  Master.  ' 


LECTURE  I. 


m  that  is  laid, 


CRITICAL    AND    BIBL.OAI.    PKOLKOOMENA    TO   THE    DE- 

VELOPMENT    OP    T!IE    NICENE    THEOLOGY    OF 

ME    DIVINE    CHRIST. 

Christianity  is  tlie  religion  of  tLe  Divine  Christ 
Incarnate  and  of  His  I.ody  the  Church.  They  are 
not  co-ordmate  as  Ritschl  teaches,  thereby  mfking 
the  Gospel  move  not  about  one  center  God  or  Christ 
but  about  two  foci-Christ  and  His  Kingdom  „; 
Church;  they  are,  however,  vitally  one  as  fhe  Head 
and  the  members,  the  vine  and  the  branches.^  The 
Incarnate  Son  of  God,  revealing  the  fullness  of  the 

which  in  its  aoepest  roo.^  and  „I     ,a  e  Toi^^otaJZr'' 

ffreatlv  modifiprt       n^u    i-  suboulinate  and   thereby 

.hat  throws  New  Testament  teaohin,,,  in^o  »  wrong  pstctiv; 
,™    =«'•    Mlrtemen  mul  Bomer,  Berlin     l«fia     TT   ,o!\ 


I  1 


8 


Critical  and  Biblical  Prolegomena 


Godhead  bodily  through  the  Church  by  the  Holy 
Spirit — that  is  the  broad  path  of  light  along  which 
all  Christian  thought  and  life  have  passed  from  Pen- 
tecost to  the  present  day.  Our  views  of  redemption, 
of  cosmology,  of  revelation,  of  history,  of  man  and 
his  destiny  both  here  and  hereafter,  move  irresistibly 
toward  this  highway  of  the  King.  The  controversies 
of  the  Early  Church  were  all  connected  directly  or 
indirectly  with  the  Person  of  our  Lord.  The  Divin- 
ity of  Christ  is  the  one  great  doctrine  of  the  Nicene 
Theology. 

It  is  very  evident,  then,  that  the  relation  of  Chris- 
tianity to  its  founder  is  absolutely  unique.  Judaism 
and  Moses,  Islam  and  Mohammed,  Buddhism  and 
Sakya  Muni  can  well  be  thought  apart — the  religion 
grows  away  from  its  originator — ,  but  now,  perhaps 
as  never  before,  are  Christians  united  in  the  belief 
that  the  teachings  and  the  person  of  Jesus  cannot  be 
separated.  What  He  did  rested  upon  what  He  was. 
He  said  to  the  laboring  and  heavy  laden:  "Come 
unto  me  ...  I  will  give  you  rest."  He  said  to 
the  troubled  disciples:  "I  am  the  way,  the  truth  and 
the  life."  Such  words  would  sound  to  heathen  sages 
as  sIk  ^r  folly  or  fanaticism.     He  told  the  healed  man 

of  the  secularized  Church  what  he  considers  to  be  the  eternal 
truths  of  Christianity."  He  characterizes  such  a  point  of  view 
as  "  obscure  blending  of  a  catholicizing  reproduction  of  the 
Church  as  highest  means  of  making  the  truth  credible,  and  of 
Kantian  ethical  ideas,  which  claim  to  be  taken  from  the  real 
Church."  He  says  Ritschl  must  be  shown  that  "he  will  be 
forced  either  to  go  backwards,  defenceless  before  criticism, 
into  Catholicism,  or  forwards  to  the  speculative  point  of  view  of 
reason  resting  upon  itself." 


I 


i 


to  the  Nicene  Theology. 


9 


:he  Holy 
liT  which 
fom  Pen- 
lemption, 
man  and 
■resistibly 
troversies 
irectly  or 
he  Divin- 
lie  Nicene 

of  Chris- 

Judaism 
hism  and 
e  religion 
r,  perhaps 
the  belief 
cannot  be 
He  Avas. 
n:  "Come 
e  said  to 

truth  and 
Ihen  sages 

ialed  man 

I  the  eternal 
pint  of  view 
Istion  of  the 
lible,  and  of 
Inn  the  real 
j  he  will  be 
criticism, 
of  view  of 


to  carry  his  bed  on  the  sabbath ;  and  said  to  the  Jews 
that  He  kept  no  sabbath  because  His  Father  worked 
also  on  the  sabbath.  No  wonder  the  horrified  be- 
lievers in  Monotheism  accused  Him  of  blasphemy. 
But  the  consciousness  of  Christ,  like  the  flight  of  the 
eagle  sailing  serenely  over  hedges,  rivers  and  hills 
that  shut  in  the  beasts  of  the  field,  moved  calmly 
above  all  earthly  limitations,  and  assured  Him  that 
He  was  the  Son  of  Man  "who  is  in  Heaven."*  In 
Him  humanity  reached  a  moral  relation  to  the  Infi- 
nite, which  Israel  grasped  only  indirectly  through 
Law,  and  which  Paganism  never  grasped  at  all. 

Judaism  has  been  called  the  religion  of  the  Divane 
Spirit,-  while  heathenism  is  the  worship  of  the  Divine 
Nature,  whether  in  the  degraded  form  of  idolatry  or 
in  the  philosophical  garb  of  pantheism.  The  one 
exalted  God;  the  other  adored  man.  But  Jesus 
brought  the  religion  of  both.  He  is  the  Divine  Man, 
and  the  Church  is  the  Divine  Brotherhood  of  holy 
men,  the  light  and  salt  of  the  earth.  Such  a  Christ 
gives  us  real  union  with  God,  which  is  the  truth  felt 
after  by  pantheism,  while  avoiding  its  errors,  of  the 
obliteration  of  freedom,  personal  immortality  and 
moral  distinctions.  He  also  gives  us  in  His  Divine- 
Human  Person  that  separation  of  mankind  from  God, 
that  moral  liberty,  for  which  theism  especially  con- 
tends. 


1  This  last  clause  is  lacking  in  B.  L.  and  Cod.  Sin.;  but 
Meyer  defends  the  words,  and  they  say  only  what  the  context 
teaches. 

2  Cf.  Lutterbeck,  Die  N.  Test.  Lehrbegriffe,  Mayence,  1852. 
S.  9ff. 


i  * 


If 


10 


Critical  and  Biblical  Prolegomena 


This  brief  glance  at  the  issues  involved  shows  us 
that  the  history  of  the  Nicene  Theology  with  its 
divine  Christology,  instead  of  being  a  discussion  of 
ancient  Greek  speculation,  as  Harnack,  Hatch  and 
others  hold,  is  an  inquiry  into  the  very  thing  that 
makes  Christianity  what  it  is.  The  alternative  here  is 
not  orthodoxy  or  liberalism,  but  rather  the  question 
of  Christianity  or  Deism.  If  the  Nicene  Creed  is 
wrong,  as  wrong  as  many  critics  assume,  then  Christ 
is  only  what  Wendt,  for  example,  makes  Him  to  be,  a 
great  teacher  and  example ;'  then  the  Church  of  God 
is  only  a  Society  of  Ethical  Culture.  Here,  if  any- 
where, we  should  expect  those  who  denounce  dogmatic 
Christianity  to  be  clear  and  decided  in  utterance. 
But,  strange  to  say,  that  is  not  usually  the  case.  The 
Protestantenverein  (1868),  speaking  for  the  liberal 
theologians  of  Germany,  denies  the  right  to  be  asked 
" whether  we  believe  Jesus  to  be  'truly  God'  or  not," 
but  continues:  "We  do  not  w^ish  to  conceal  the  indis- 
putable fact  that  the  ancient  world  . . .  learned  more 
readily  to  believe  in  Christ  when  presented  to  them 
as  God,  while  the  modern  world  is  much  more  readily 
won  for  Christ  when  He  is  humanly  set  forth  as  man."^ 
Similarly  Schultz,  a  follower  of  Ritschl,  has  written 
a  book  of  Seven  hundred  pages  on  the  Gottheit  Christi 
(Gotha,  1881)  in  which  he  tries  to  tell  us  how  a  man 
Jesus  by  means  of  the  doctrine  of  Communicatio  Idio- 
matum  could  come  to  have  "the  divine  value  and  con- 
tent" of  God  for  us  (p.  17).     Here  the  Divine  Christ 

1  See  his  Teaching  of  Jesus.  Edinburgh,  1892.  Preface; 
and  I,  p.  9C  f. 

^  Der  allgem.  Deutsche  Protest.  Verein.    Berlin,  1883,  S.  14. 


to  the  Xicene  Theology. 


IX 


!.     Preface; 


is  made  a  part  of  mission  methods,  or  an  imaginary 
quantity,  or  God  Himself  at  will.  For  example,  when 
Scliultz  speaks  of  salvation,  he  says:  "The  work  of 
redemption  demands  the  full  and  complete  Divinity  of 
Christ"  (S.  50).  Similar  necessity  is  felt  by  all  who 
contemplate  Jesus  as  Saviour,  for  who  can  forgive  sins 
but  God  only  ?    He  that  hath  the  Son  hath  life. 

These  reasonings  of  Jews  and  primitive  Christiana 
were  urged  with  all  their  cogency  by  the  Nicene  theolo- 
gians. Athanasius  argued  as  stoutly  as  did  Luther 
that  the  Divine  Christ  and  salvation  through  Him  are 
inseparable,  though  they  put  the  connection  differently. 
The  Reformers  held  that  since  Jesus  is  Divine  we 
must  have  full  redemption  through  Him  apart  from 
good  works.  While  the  Nicene  theologians  were  a 
little  more  experiential,  and  taught  that  since  salvation 
and  eternal  life  are  given  by  Christ  He  must  be  the 
Divine  Son  of  God.*  A  ladder  by  which  the  soul  is 
to  climb  to  God  must  reach,  they  felt,  all  the  way 
from  the  deepest  needs  of  earth  to  the  highest  glories 
of  heaven.  The  doctrine  of  the  Divine  Redeemer 
underlies  the  doctrine  of  Justification  by  Faith,  which 
Luther  called  the  article  of  a  standing]:  or  a  falling 
Church.  The  historical  argument,  to  which  Luther 
here  appeals,  seems  especially  valid  when  applied  to 
Christology.  Every  brotherhood  of  men  meeting  in 
the  name  of  the  divine  omnipresent  Christ  lives. 
They  fulfill  in  a  thousand  forms  of  virtuous  action  the 
promise:  "Lo,  I  am  with  you  ahvay."  Ignorance, 
error,  superstition,  corruption  may  spot  and  wrinkle 

*  Cf.  Cremer,  Die  Bedexitimg  Der  Person  Christl;  review 
by  Candlish,  in  the  Crit.  Bev.,  1894.     No.  1. 


f 


IS 


Critical  and  Biblical  Prolegomena 


II 


the  churches  that  hold  this  faith,  as  appears  in  Greek 
and  Roman  Catholicism;  but  still  they  live  and  show 
an  abiding  power  of  revival  and  reform. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  whole  course  of  history  ia 
strewn  with  the  wrecks  of  Ebionite  synagogues,  Gnos- 
tic societies,  Sabellian  companies,  Arian  churches. 
Unitarian  meetings,  Ethical  Culture  clubs.  These 
were  often  more  intelligent,  more  Apostolic  in  usage, 
sometimes  purer  in  life  than  their  orthodox  neigh- 
bors; but  they  ever  dragged  after  them  a  lengthening 
chain ;  they  had  no  power  of  revival  from  within,  and 
their  end  was  destruction. 

The  history  of  heresy  is  the  judgment  of  heresy. 
As  Coleridge  said,  a  Unitarian  may  be  a  Christia  , 
but  Unitarianism  is  not  Christianity.  It  is  a  cut  OiJ 
branch  growing  with  sap  drawn  from  an  Evangelical 
root;  hence  its  speedy  decay.  So-called  liberal 
churches  in  America  have  grown  less  than  one-fifth  as 
fast  as  the  orthodox.  On  their  own  confession  they 
are  "  tame  and  spiritless,"  and  "  going  back  in  use- 
fulness, in  vitality,  in  Church  soundness."^  Holtz- 
mann  says  they  are  "  a  diminishing  minority"  in  Ger- 
many. When  once  the  Divine  Christ  is  lost,  the 
churches  soon  give  signs  of  woe  that  all  is  lost. 
Strauss  gave  up  Jesus  as  Lord,  and  ended  with  the 
denial  of  a  future  life  and  profession  of  mere  Epi- 
curean evolution. 

The  Deistic  movement  in  England  well  shows  the 
tendency  of  humanitarian  Christianity.  Hore  says  it 
went  through  three  phases.  In  the  first  its  \vatch- 
word  was:  "No  Dogmatic  Theology" — ^this  was  the 

»  The  Unitarian  Bevieic,  March,  1888. 


T" 


to  the  yicene  Theolofjy. 

position  of  Toland;  in  the  second:  "No  Historical 
Christianity" — this  was  the  position  of  Chubb;  in 
the  third :  "  No  Christianity  at  all " — this  was  the 
position  of  Bolingbroke.'  Even  the  best  of  the 
liberal  theology  of  Germany,  that  <»f  Ritschl,  shows 
the  same  signs  of  fatal  decline."  Harnack  is  more 
radical  than  his  master;  while  Bender  declares  re- 
ligion and  prayer  are  only  means  by  which  in  the 
battle  of  life  we  seek  to  lay  hold  upon  supermundane 
powers.'  Ritschl  explained  all  religion  empirically 
and  psychologically,  except  the  Revelation  in  Christ; 
this  he  considered  the  one  supernatural  exception  that 


>  The  Church  in  Enghnxl  from  Will  turn  III  to  Victoria. 
London,  1886,  Voh  mo  I,  p.  394. 

2  Thi  suggests  a  couple  of  anecdotes  told  me  by  Rev. 
Thomas  C.  Hull  of  Chicago,  it  former  pupil  of  Ritschl.  Ac- 
cording to  the  one,  Ritschl  said  to  a  visitor,  who  spoke  of  the 
difficulty  of  uuilerstanding  his  theology,  that  he  did  not  want 
every  Tom,  Dick  and  Harry  to  know  what  he  meant;  accord- 
ing to  the  other,  when  Ritschl  was  asked  about  the  future  of 
his  school,  he  replied  that  his  followers  would  form  two  wings, 
neither  of  which  would  be  right. 

3  As  soon  as  Bender,  in  his  book,  ^^Daa  Wesen  der  Jleligion 
iDul  die  Gesetze  dtr  KirchenbildioH/,''''  1885,  put  in  clear,  popu- 
lar form  the  ideas  of  Ritschl,  starting  from  the  fundamental 
conception  of  opposition  to  all  Natural  Religion,  that  is  to  the 
natural  religious  basis  in  human  nature  for  moral  development, 
and  carried  these  ideas  to  their  logical  results,  there  was  a  great 
outcry  from  his  party  comrades.  Bender  says:  "  The  question 
about  God  is  not  the  central  question  of  religion,  but  the 
question  about  man.  The  idea  of  God  is  tirst  of  all  only  the 
helping  line  which  man  pulls,  in  order  to  make  his  own  ex- 
istence in  this  world  intelligible.  The  prayerful  looking  up  to 
God  is  only  a  means  of  help  by  which  man  in  the  battle  of  life 


I        I 


II  I 


II  ! 


14 


Critical  and  Biblical  Prolegomena 


proved  the  rule.  Bender,  however,  says  that  such  an 
isolated  Christ  is  unthinkable,  and  sets  Him  aside 
that  Christianity  may  be  wholly  explained  on  ration- 
alistic principles.* 

seeks  to  lay  hold  upon  supermundane  powers."  (S  22f.)  Cf. 
Plleidercr,  in  Jahrb.  f.  Protest.  Theologie,  1891,  IL  3. 

1  Certainly  an  anti-supernatural,  anti-miraculous  spirit 
dominates  this  school.  Schoen  says  {Les  oriyines  historiques 
de  la  theologie  de  llitschl,  Paris,  1893,  p.  47):  "Ritschl  is  ex- 
traordinarily reserved  on  the  question  of  miracles.  What  he 
especially  avoids,  in  his  lectures  as  in  his  writings,  is  making 
the  Christian  faith  solidaric  with  belief  in  any  kind  of  miracle" 
(quoted  in  Nippold,  II,  243). 

Harnack,  too,  says:  "Every  single  miracle  is  for  the  his- 
torian completely  a  matter  of  doubt,  and  a  summation  of  what  is 
doubtful  can  never  lead  historically  to  certainty."  Here  is  the 
exact  position  of  Hume.  No  amount  of  evidence  can  prove  an 
objective  miracle.  It  can  be  true  only  religiously  and  sub- 
jectively. But  the  historical  Christ  is  a  miraculous  Christ.  He 
was  a  wonder  and  He  did  wonders.  To  reject  His  works  is  to 
reject  Himself;  for  He  pleaded  with  men  as  a  last  resort  to  be- 
lieve in  Him  for  the  very  works'  sake  (John  xiv,  11).  To  re- 
ject the  miraculous,  supernatural  Christ  is  to  reject  the  only 
Christ  we  know;  and  is  to  leave  the  origin  of  Christianity  in- 
explicable. It  is  to  go  with  Renau  and  thiiik  that  a  hysterical 
woman,  Mary  Magdalene,  "next  to  Jesus"  did  "most  for  the 
establishment  of  Christianity "  by  starting  the  myth  that  He 
miraculously  rose  from  the  grave.  Channing  felt  so  strongly 
on  this  subject  that  he  said:  "The  miracles  are  so  interwoven 
with  all  Christ's  teachings  and  acts  that  in  taking  them  away 
there  is  next  to  nothing  left." 

But  this  suggests  another  question,  namely,  "  whether  those 
who  deny  the  miraculous  in  the  story  of  our  Lord  have  the 
right  to  call  themselves  Christians  at  all.  This  question  is  dis- 
cussed in  the  InternationaUonrnal  of  J^Jt/u'ca  by  Prof.  Henry 
Sidgwick,  tht  famous   English  authority  on   Philosophy  and 


legomena 


to  the  Nicene  Theology, 


16 


such  an 
im  aside 
»n  ration - 


22f.)    Cf. 
3. 

ous  spirit 
historiques 
tschl  is  ex- 
What  he 
is  making 
jf  miracle" 

or  the  his- 
1  of  what  is 
lere    is  the 
in  prove  an 
w  and   svib- 
Christ.   He 
works  is  to 
F'sort  to  be- 
To  re- 
the  only 
itianity  in- 
hysterical 
ost  for  the 
that  He 
o  strongly 
nterwoven 
them  away 


). 


jther  those 
have  the 
;ion  is  dis- 
of.  Henry 
sophy  and 


1 


We  have  referred  to  the  English  Deists.  Now  it 
would  be  very  unfair  to  put  the  theology  of  men  like 
He  mann  and  Kaftan  on  a  level  with  the  teachings  of 
Toland  and  Tindal.  There  is  much  that  ev^ery 
Christian  can  learn  to  his  profit  from  this  German 
school  of  divines;  while  the  Deists  offer  little  in- 
struction to  believing  men.  And  yet  when  we  try  to 
reach  Jesus  Christ,  as  taught  in  the  Scriptures,  and  as 
accepted  in  the  faith  and  profession  of  the  Church,  by 
the  help  of  Ritschl,  we  find  ourselves  held  back  by 
presuj^positions  and  theories,  that  offer  us  little  more 
than  the  moral  kingdom  of  virtue  so  much  praised  by 
Lord  Herbert,  the  founder  of  English  Deism.  Hume 
gave  British  rationalists  a  theory  of  "  human  under- 
standing," *  which  claimed  it  was  psychologically 
imjjossible  to  get  a  theoretical  knowledge  of  God, 
of  immortality,  and  of  miracles. 


Through  Kant  and 


Ethics,  in  a  very  careful  paijcr  on  *  The  Ethics  of  Religious 
Conformity.'  Christianity,  he  says,  with  its  various  creeds, 
has  adapted  itself  lo  many  p'lilosophies. 

"There  is  much  essentially  modern  about  the  Universe,  its 
End  and  Ground  and  Mo'  al  Order,  which  will  bear  to  be  thrown 
into  the  mold  of  these  time-honored  creeds.  But  there  is  one 
line  of  thought  which  is  not  compatible  with  them,  and  that  is 
the  line  of  thought  which,  taught  by  modern  science  and  modern 
historical  criticism,  concludes  against  the  miraculous  element  of 
the  Gospel  history  .  .  ,  Let  them  build  their  edifice  of 
ideas,  old  and  new,  and  make  it  as  habitable  as  they  can  for  the 
modern  mind;  but  for  the  s:ike  of  the  ethical  aims  whii-h  we 
and  they  have  in  common,  let  them  not  daub  it  uith  the  un- 
tempered  mortar  of  falsehood  and  evasion  of  solemn  obliga- 
tion "     (Quoted  in  llie  Jndepe/ulent,  April  9,  189G). 

1  Cf.  his  Philosophical  Essays  concenilng  human  underst<tn<l- 
iny.     London,  1750. 


11 


16 


Critical  and  Bihllcal  Prolegomena 


Lotze,  this  theory  of  knowledge  has  reached  Ritschl, 
and,  though  he  claims  often  to  reject  all  metaphysics 
on  principle  from  theology,  it  colors  and  warps  all  his 
writings.^  We  can  know  only  phenomena;  therefore 
God  as  He  is  in  Himself,  the  Divine  Christ  behind  and 
in  Jesus,  the  supernatural,  the  miracles,  even  history, 
all  lie  outside  religion,  because  religion  must  rest  on 
certainty,  and  certainty  rests  upon  a  subjective  esti- 
mate. What  promotes  my  spiritual  life  is  true;  all 
else  is  indifferent  or  untrue.     That  is,  Christianity  has 

1  In  his  Theologie  unci  Metaphysik,  1889,  S.  38,  howevei', 
and  elsewhere,  he  admits  some  rights  to  philosophy  iu  religion. 
Herrmann  especially  follows  Ritschl  in  his  attack  upon  philosophy 
in  theology,  in  his  Die  Metaphysik  in  der  77ieolo(/ie,lBl6,  which 
Kaftan  was  forced  to  call  a  one  sided  advocacy  of  Ritschl's 
teachings  (77t.  I/it.  zg.  1877,  No.  3).  In  opposition  to  such  a 
position,  Krauss  affirms  (Ep.  to  Herrmann,  mJbb.f.  Prot.Th., 
1883,  S.  193  f.):  "No  metaphysics  in  religion  means  simply 
no  religion,"  and  "if  the  intercourse  between  God  and  man  is 
not  real  and  matter  of  immediate  experience,  then  all  theology 
is  but  a  play  of  fancy  "  (Cf.  a  review  of  this  discussion  in 
Nippold  11,  7  f).  It  must  never  be  forg  )tten  that  the  phil- 
osophy of  Hegel  had  run  its  course  and  le.t  the  atmosphere  full 
of  dry  abstractions  and  dead  apologetics  when  the  Ritschl 
theology  appeared  as  a  reaction  from  effete  Hegelianism,  as  well 
as,  in  its  historico-critical  efforts,  a  reaction  also  from  the 
school  of  Baur,  which  was  colored  by  Ilegeliau  thought. 

But  theologians  in  growing  numbers  now  agree  that  RitschTs 
theory  of  knowledge,  which  shapes  his  scheme  of  doctrine,  is 
defective,  and  inconsistent  (Cf.  Ptleidcrcr,  in  Jahrb.  f.  Prot. 
Theologie,  1889,  H.  2).  Lipsius  says  {ib.  II.  1)  that  we  must 
avoid  on  the  one  hand  the  skeptical  and  empirical  interpretation 
of  Kant  offered  by  the  Neo-Kantian  school,  and  shun  on  the 
other  the  Mill-Comtean  Positivism  followed  by  Kaftan,  as  well 
as    the    "broken   Lotzeanism"  of    Ritschl,    "which    begins 


olegomena 

id  Ritschl, 
etaphysics 
rps  all  his 
therefore 
lehind  and 
'n  history^ 
1st  rest  on 
ctive  esti- 
5  true;  all 
tianity  has 

18,  however, 
■  iu  religion. 
nphilo80}>hy 
,1876,  which 
of  Ritschrs 
on  to  such  a 
t\  ProtTh., 
leans  simply 
and    man  is 
all  theology 
iscussion   in 
It   the  phil- 
osphere  full 
the  Ritschl 
ism,  as  well 
0   from  the 
ght. 

latRitschl's 
doctrine,  is 
b.  f.  Prot. 
lat  we  must 
terpretation 
mn  on  the 
Itan,  as  well 
lich    beffius 


to  the  Nicene  Theology. 


17 


to  do,  not  with  things  as  they  are  in  reason  or  in 
nature  or  in  history,  not  with  truth  in  itself,  but  only 
with  those  personal,  practical  aspects  of  truth  which 
are  of  worth  in  religious  experience.  This  standard 
is  called  a  "  Werthurtheil,^^  or  judgment  of  value.  A 
recent  critic'  of  this  position  maintains  that  Ritschl 
lands  in  only  three  fundamental  doctrines,  viz. — trust 
in  God,  faithfulness  to  duty,  and  universal  love  to 
man.  If  this  be  so,  it  is  certainly  little  advance  upon 
the  five  articles  of  religion  laid  down  by  Lord  Her- 
bert; God,  divine  worship,  life  of  ]Hety,  repentance 
as  condition  of  pardon,  and  future  rewards  and  punish- 
ments.^ 

with  subjective  idealism,  and,  by  a  logical  salfo  mortahy 
leaps  over  into  the  most  naive  realism."  This  school  plays 
fast  and  loose  between  idealism  and  realism,  to  get  its  peculiar 
views  of  God,  Christ  and  the  Gospel.  Lipsius  well  exclaims 
(S.  6):  "  There  can  no  more  be  a  double  truth  than  there  can  be 
a  double  reality.  We  demand  one  view  of  the  Universe,  which 
shall  give  totality  to  the  whole  world  of  our  experience  "  (Cf. 
Traub's  article  on  Ritechl's  Theory  of  knoidedye,  in  Ztft.  f. 
Til.  u.  Kirche,  1894,  11.  2).  Or,  as  Pfleiderer  describes  this 
Ritschlian  game  of  shuttlecock:  Now  we  have  theological  ob- 
jective realities  cast  aside  as  mere  products  of  the  "vulgar, 
evil  theory  of  knowledge  and  metaphysics,"  to  put  subjective 
phenomena  of  consciousness  in  their  place,  and  again  we  are 
innocently  assured  that  those  subjective  phenomena  of  conscious- 
ness are  the  effects  and  revelations  of  j)re8upposed  objects, 
which  are  taken  for  granted  as  a  matter  of  course,  but  only  as 
objects  having  subjective  and  not  real  existence! 

1  Cf.  ^\^\io\.(\,  Die  theolo^,  i,che  Eimelschide  ini  Verluiltiiiss 
zur  eoangel.   Kirche.     Braunschweig.     1893,  I.   S.   264. 

2  Cf.  Leland,   Deistical  icriters.     London,    1764,    4th  Edi- 
tion, p.  3. 


^ili 


18 


Critical  and  Biblical  Prolegomena 


But  we  naturally  ask:  What  of  Christ?  The 
reply  of  Ritschl  is  that  He  is  everything  to  the  Chris- 
tian.^ It  is  the  peculiar  claim  of  this  school,  as 
we  shall  see,  to  identify  Christianity  with  Christ.  This 
very  claim,  however,  is  so  presented  as  to  greatly 
embarrass  us  in  approaching  Jesus  through  Bible  and 
history.  My  heart  burns  within  me  as  I  read  the  Psalms 
of  David  or  the  propb  icies  of  Isaiah ;  but  I  am  told 
the  only  revelation  for  the  Christian  is  through  Jesus, 
and  not  through  the  Old  Testament.     I  think  of  the 

^  Kattenbusch  thinks  the  followers  of  Ritschl  should  regard 
"the  new"  in  his  teachings  as  above  all  in  his  method,  which 
consisted  in  making  Christ  the  center  of  theology.  This 
method  should  be  further  developed,  he  says,  and  "frame  Dog- 
mat  ik  from  the  fundamental  idea,  that  we  are  to  think  of  God 
as  of  Christ.  God's  historical  self-witness  to  Himself  should 
be  the  point  of  departure  and  not  the  conclusion  of  dogmatic 
reflection.  To  have  given  this  idea  prominence  is  the  im- 
portance of  Ritschl,  which  will  remain,  though  much  of  his 
teaching  should  fall  to  the  ground."  [Von  ISchleiermacher  zu 
Hitschl.  A  lecture,  Giesseu:  Ricker,  1892,  S.  80.)  It  is  this 
extreme  Christo-centric  view,  making  Jesus  the  only  revealer  of 
God,  that  leads  this  school  of  necessity  to  reject  the  Old  Testa- 
ment as  a  revelation — in  spite  of  Christ's  own  words  to  the  con- 
trary— (Mk.  xii.  10;  John  x,  35)  and  ignore  all  natural  revela- 
tion of  God.  This  fundamental  antagonism  to  both  the  Old 
Testament  and  Nature,  forces  these  theologians  also  more  and 
more  in  the  way  of  Gnostic  dualism  and  its  consequent  ascetic 
doctrine  of  rising  superior  to  material  things  as  the  way  to 
a  perfect  life. 

It  is  a  great  mistake  of  the  Neo-Kantian  theology  to  begin 
and  end  with  Christ.  Christianity  is  more  than  a  revelation  of 
God  in  Christ.  It  is  a  mediatorship  by  which  believers  are  led 
to  God  Himself,  the  Father  who  sent  the  Son.  Peter  took 
broader  ground  when  he  said:  "  In  every  nation  he  that  feareth 
Him,  and  worketh  righteousness,  is  acceptable  to  Him  "     (Acts 


to  the  Nicene  Theology. 


ly 


heavens  declaring  the  glory  of  God  and  the  earth  show- 
ing forth  His  handiwork ;  but  again  we  must  remem- 
ber with  Hume,  that  to  know  God  in  nature  is  impos- 
sible. I  turn  to  the  New  Testament;  but  that  is  torn 
into  pieces  by  critics,  and  the  followers  of  Ritschl  say 
we  cannot  build  faith  upon  historical  facts.  I  appeal 
to  Jesus'  own  words;  but  Herrmann  says  there  may  be 
very  few  of  these  that  can  now  be  certainly  identified.* 
I  ask:  What  do  the  few  sayings  that  Jesus  probably 
did  leave  us  teach?  When  Herrmann  assures  me  I 
must  get  beyond  these  to  the  inner  life  and  conscious- 
ness of  Jesus.     And  when  I  still  inquire,  where  is  this 


X,  35).  It  is  this  narrowing  of  all  Christianity  to  Jesus  Christ, 
that  has  led  men  to  liold  that  those  who  do  not  hear  of  the  his- 
toric Christ  in  this  world  must  have  a  second  probation  in  a 
future  life.  Gran  is  nearer  right  when  he  says:  "  Communion 
with  God  is  the  one  "enter  of  the  Christian  religion,  and  beside 
it  there  is  no  other  (  liter."  {Jahrh.  f.  Prot.  T/ieoL,  1889,  S. 
352.)  Jesus  fulfilled  Revelation  as  well  as  gave  Revelation. 
The  specifically  Christian  revelation,  however,  which  Ritschl 
finds  in  Christ  is  little  more  than  that  of  general  religious  faith 
in  Providence. 

Lipsius  {Jahrh.  f.  Prot.  Theol.,  1888,  H.  I.)  says  there  is 
nothing  new  in  Ritschl's  idea  of  the  Kingdom  of  God,  and  his 
Christology  is  essentially  the  same  as  that  of  all  liberal  theo- 
logians. He  has  no  right,  Lipsius  maintains,  to  speak  of  the 
divinity  of  Christ.  In  other  respects  he  is  behind  "modern 
theology  "  in  teaching  no  proper  life-relation  between  God  and 
mankind,  but  only  a  communion  of  aim,  which  gives  him  finally 
only  the  trias  of,  confidence  in  God,  faithfulness  in  calling,  and 
universal  love  of  mankind,  all  of  which,  Lipsius  declares,  is  a 
more  pitiful  expression  for  the  specific  contents  of  Christianity 
than  the  trias  of.  the  old  Rationalism,  God,  Free  Will  and 
Immortality. 

1  Der  Verkehr  cles  Christen  mit  Gott.     2  A.  1892  S.  54  f. 


20 


Critical  and  Biblical  Prolegomena 


mind  of  Christ  to  be  found,  I  tm  told  that  it  comes 
through  an  impression  that  I  receive  within  the 
Church,  which  is  the  moral  Kingdom  started  by  Jesus, 
while  I  read  the  supposed  historical  record  of  what 
Christ  said  and  did.^  All  the  Revelation  in  Christy 
all  the  salvation  that  He  secured  was  for  the  Church, 
for  his  Kingdom.  He  has  no  message  for  the  in- 
dividual   and    the  individual  has   no  business  with 

1  Cf.   Munchmeyer,  Die  Bedeutung  der  Christl.   Thatsachen 
filr  den  Christl.      Glauben;  in  Neue  Kirchl.     Zeitschrift.   1895, 

n.  5. 

The  theory  of  Ritschl  makes  all  that  his  school  says  about 
the  iuner  life  of  Jesus  a  product  of  the  critic's  own  fancy;  for  it 
is  considered  wrong  to  treat  the  actions  of  Jesus  as  identical 
with  His  thoughts  and  motives.  The  Person  of  Christ  is 
ignored,  save  as  seen  in  certain  acts.  We  may  ask  what  He  did, 
but  not  who  He  was;  because  we  know  nothing  of  a  souljoer  se, 
above  or  beyond  the  functions  in  which  it  is  active  [R.  u.  V. 
\\\^  S.  21).  Here  we  are  again  in  the  track  of  Hume  and  are  told 
we  can  know  only  "impressions"  of  Jesus  but  not  Jesus  Him- 
self. And  yet  we  are  assured  that  this  soul  of  Christ,  as  that  of 
every  Christian,  though  only  a  sequence  of  acts,  with  no  exist- 
ing unity,  asserted  itself,  and  is  to  asert  itself,  against  all  the 
transitory  impressions  of  the  world!  The  soul  which  Ritschl 
describes  can  never  do  what  he  requires  of  it. 

We  are  told  to  go  back  historically  to  Christ,  but  when  w'e 
go  back  we  are  met  at  once  by  a  theory  of  knowledge  which 
makes  Him  but  a  phenomenon  or  series  of  phenomena,  which 
has  Oiily  religious  worth,  and  that  only  in  so  far  as  it  affords  a 
judgment  of  value  to  be  tested  by  the  feeling  of  pleasure  or 
pain  which  accompanies  it.  Such  a  subjective  standard  of 
value  leaves  very  little  of  the  historic  Christ  to  reward  the 
student  who  has  gone  back  so  far.  Herrmann  is  ever  speaking 
of  the  "form  of  Jesus"  ( FcrA;e/ir,  21,  49),  "image  of  Jesus" 
(92,  99),  "appearance  of  Jesus"  (29,  31,  95,  100,  140),    as  if 


to  the  N^icene  Theology. 


21 


Him.  In  the  atmosphere  of  His  Church  man  receives 
an  impression,  which  produces  faith  in  God  as  Father 
and  a  desire  to  overcome  the  world.  In  its  last  analy-, 
sis,  therefore,  this  undograatic  Christianity  is  an  im- 
pression and  an  atmosphere^  neither  of  which  can  have 
much  connection  with  Nicene  Theology  or  any  other 
rational  statement  of  Christian  doctrine.^ 


!na,   which 


the  historic  Christ  were  nothincf  but  an  "appearance."  Are 
we  not  here  again  in  the  atmosphere  of  Docetism  and  Gnosti- 
cism? In  this  "appearance"  we  read  that  f-Jod  is  love,  that  lie 
is  our  God  as  He  was  the  God  of  Jesus,  and  that  we  must  fight 
\ho  worUl  as  Jesus  indicated;  but  there  is  a  strange  sense  of 
unreality  about  such  a  way  of  approaching  "  the  Fullness  of  the 
Godhead  bodily." 

If  a  religious  impression  such  as  we  get  of  Jesus  in  reading 
the  New  Testament  be  sufficient  for  Christian  faith,  regardless 
of  historic  certainty  about  Jesus,  are  we  not  back  in  the  ration- 
alism of  Do  Wette,  who  advised  us  to  return  to  pagan  mythol- 
ogy, and  learn  that  the  creation  of  religious  impressions  and 
emotions  comes  from  certain  symbolical  representations  ? 
Schultz  holds  that  it  is  indifferent  for  religion  whether  the  his- 
toric Jesus  was  myth  or  man,  landing  not  only  in  mythology, 
but  in  what  Dorner  calls  "  a  contradictory  certainty  of  twofold 
possibilities."    {lirieficechsel,  Bd.  II,  193.) 

1  Much  of  what  the  Gospels  say  Jesus  said  is  rejected  by 
both  Monist  and  Kantian  theologians.  Each  chooses  his  own 
"picture"  of  what  Christ  said  and  did.  For  example,  his 
teachings  about  miracles,  angels,  power  over  nature,  the  Holy 
Spirit,  His  death  for  sinners,  the  Scriptures  and  eschatology  are 
almost  completely  ignored.  Hence  we  have,  as  F.  Luther 
writes  (iV.  Kirchl.  Ztft.,  1895,  H.  2),  "the  Bible  doctrine  of 
Christ  and  our  redemption  in  Him  opposed  to  a  doctrine  of 
ethics,  which  is  a  product  of  the  modern  view  of  the  world, 
whose  ideas  are  to  be  embodied  in  the  modern  portrait  of 
Christ." 


22 


Critical  and  Biblical  Prolegomena 


But  let  us  now  proceed  to  the  great  source  of  all 
faith  and  all  theology  and  inquire  what  Jesus  thought 
of  Himself  and  His  work.  In  so  doing  we  are  in  liappy 
agreement  with  Christian  scholars  of  es'(;ry  school  of 
thought.  In  nothing  does  the  nineteenth  century 
resemble  the  first  so  much  as  in  the  central,  all -con- 
trolling position  given  Jesus  by  the  Church.  In 
Apostolic  days,  theology  proper,  or  the  doctrine  of 
God,  was  little  discussed — it  came  over  slightly  changed 
from  the  Old  Testament — but  we  find  a  fully  devel- 
oped Christology,  bringing  God,  the  Holy  Spirit,  the 
revel ati<m  to  Israel,  cosmology  and  soteriology,  all 
within  the  blessed  radiance  of  the  Sun  of  righteousness 
(Mai.  iv.  2).  Similarly  in  our  days,  especially  since 
Strauss'  Leben  Jesu^  in  1 835,  showed  to  what  abysses  a 
jiantheistic  study  of  the  Gospels  led,  and  Kenan's 
Vie  Je  Jesus  (1863)  presented  Christ  as  a  poet- 
preacher,  a  sentimental  dreamer,  who  talked  of  Utopia 
but  died  in  poverty  and  disgrace,  has  Jesus  become  the 
center  of  historical  and  critical  study.  The  more  that 
material  science  declared  a  Divine-Man  impossible,  and 
the  more  the  collapse  of  transcendental  philosophy 
inclined  many  to  think  of  Christ  as  a  legendary  ideal, 
the  more  eagerly  have  men  asked:  What  was  the 
consciousness,  what  is  the  testimony  of  the  Lord  Him- 
self? The  critical  study  of  the  Old  Testament,  which 
appeared  to  take  the  Messianic  truth  out  of  the  pleas- 
ures of  hope  that  animated  Israel,  and  the  critical 
study  of  the  New  Testament,  which  seemed  to  take 
the  truth  of  Christ  out  of  the  pleasures  of  memory 
of  the  Apostolic  Church,  alike  drove  inquirers  back 
upon  Jesus  Christ,  as  the  one  rock  foundation,  that  could 
not  be    shaken.     Lives  of   Christ,   New  Testament 


leffomena 

rce  of  all 
8  thought 
in  happy 
school  of 
I   century 
1,  all-con- 
irch.      In 
)ctrine  of 
Y changed 
Uy  devel- 
^pirit,  the 
)logy,    all 
iteousness 
tally  since 
abysses  a 
L   llenan's 
1   a   poet- 
of  Utopia 
econie  the 
more  that 
sible,  and 
lilosophy 
ary  ideal, 
was  the 
ord  Him- 
[it,  which 
;he  pleas- 
critical 
to  take 
memory 
era  back 
hat  could 
estament 


to  the  Nicene  Theology. 


23 


Theology,  History  of  New  Testament  Times,  and 
other  departments  of  research  arose,  each  kindling  its 
torch  to  bring  into  fuller  radiance  the  face  of  Him 
that  is  altogether  lovely.  It  was  in  the  full  current  of 
all  this  movement  that  the  theology  of  Ritschl  arose. 
He  was  an  epitome,  in  a  marked  degree,  of  the  thought 
of  his  age.  He  was  a  great  historical  scholar ;  but  by 
nature  he  was  above  all  a  systematic  theologian.* 
Hence  when  he  turned  to  giv^e  an  account  to  himself 
of  what  Christianity  is,  he  took  Jesus  Christ,  the  cen- 
ter of  all  historical  inquiry,  and  set  Him  in  the  first 
place  in  his  system  of  theology.  Instead  of  starting 
from  religious  feeling^  as  most  German  theologians 
were  doing  since  Schleiermacher,  he  set  out  from  the 
Gospel  as  written  in  the  New  Testament,  and  claiming 
our  faith  and  obedience.  In  this  Gospel  he  found 
Jesus  Christ,  unique,  speaking  for  God  in  a  way  not 
to  be   questioned,  the  founder   of   the  Kingdom  of 


Heaven.      Ritschl 


says: 


The   Revelation   value   of 


Christ  is  the  foundation  of  knowledge  for  all  the  work 
of  theology.'^ 

Again,  if  we  take  Pfleiderer,  who,  with  Bieder- 
mann,  Hilgenfeld  and  some  others,  stands  for  a  modi- 
tied  Hegelian-Baur  view  of  Christianity,  as  another 
representative  of  liberal  German  theology,  we  find 
him  advocating  like  Christo- centric  methods  of  study. 
He  says:  "Jesus'  consciousness  of  His  being  Son  of 
God   is   universally  recognized  as    the  characteristic 

^  Kattenbusch,  one  of  his  school,  says  of  Ritschl:  *'  He 
was  entirely  a  systematic  theologian,  even  when  he  appeared  as 
a  historian."  {Lehrhuch  cler  vergleichenden  Confessionskimdey 
1892,  Bd.  I.  S.  VIII.) 

2  Rechtfertigung  xincl  Versohnung.     III.  s  S.  6  f . 


I  ' 


S4 


Critical  and  Biblical  Prolegomena 


feature  of  His  religious  personality.'"  Or,  as  the 
orthodox  Godet  puts  it:  "Christianity  is  entirely 
based  upon  Christ's  consciousness  of  Himself,  and  it 
is  the  heroism  of  faith  to  rest  upon  the  extraordinary 
testimony  which  this  Being  gave  to  Himself."^  If, 
then,  the  contents  of  the  consciousness  of  Christ  can 
be  reached,  we  will  have  Christianity,  and  will  know 
whether  the  lofty  Christology  of  the  Nicene  Creed  is 
from  God  or  from  Plato.  Where  are  the  words  of 
Jesus?  And  if  we  have  them,  what  do  they  mean? 
The  reply  to  the  first  question  is  not  so  difficult  as  it 
was  a  few  years  ago,  or  as  some  critics  still  imagine. 
The  New  Testament  writings,  with  hardly  an  excep- 
tion, are  now  generally  regarded  as  literature  of  the 
first  century.^  The  Synoptist  Gospels  came  from  the 
first  generation  of  Apostolic  men,  who  were  in  per- 
sonal contact  with  Christ.  Even  the  Fourth  Gospel, 
at  least  in  its  teachings,  is  accepted,  as  giving  the 
thoughts  of  Jesus,  by  Ritschl,  Wendt,  Harnack,  and 
other  liberal  critics.  The  result  is,  as  Sell,  a  follower 
of  Ritschl  writes:  "If  any  one  takes  his  stand  vf'iXh. 
the  most  advanced  critics  he  comes  essentially  to  the 
same  result,  which  was  formerly  reached  in  the  un- 
sifted, sum-total  tradition  of  the  New  Testament."* 


1  Ztft.  fiXr  wissensch.     Theologic.     1893,  S.  1  f. 

8  Commentary  on  John,  II,  p.  315,  quoted  by  Orr,  Chris- 
tian vieio  of  God  and  the  icorld  as  centering  in  the  Incarnation. 
Lecture  VI.  p.  251,  New  York.     1893. 

8  Cf.  Zahn,  Gesch.  dea  N'.  T.  Kanons.  Erlangen,  1888. 
B.  I.  S.  429. 

4  Au8  der  Gesch.  des  Christenthums.  Darmstadt,  1888, 
S.  5;  and  Harnack,  Das  Christenthum  u.  die  Geschichte,  1895, 
S.  19. 


to  the  Nicene  Theology. 


25 


It  is  when  we  approach  the  second  question  that 
difficulties  arise  thick  and  fast.  But  even  here  there 
is  much  greater  agreement  than  there  was  a  generation 
ago.  The  scientific,  historico- grammatical  exegesis  of 
the  New  Testament  has  led  most  scholars  to  admit 
that  these  writings  say  just  about  what  the  Church 
has  always  understood  them  to  say.  The  differ- 
ences of  opinion  show  themselves  chiefly  in  the  var- 
ious attitudes  taken  towards  what  the  New  Testament 
says.* 

And  first  of  all  as  to  Jesus  Himself.  Harnack  says 
He  appears  as  "  an  overpowering  personality,"  who  led 
man  into  a  "  new  communion  with  God."  He  "  brought 
no  new  doctrine  into  the  world  .  .  .  but  showed  a  holy 
life,"  to  lead  men  "out  of  natural  connections  and 
oppositions  into  a  union  of  love,  and  prepare  them 
for  eternal  life."'^  That  is,  Jesus  was  a  great  impres- 
sionist, who  made  men  think  of  God  and  will  to  enter 
His  Kingdom.  Pfleiderer  thinks  He  was  only  the  first 
and  greatest  of  the  "  moral  and  religious  geniuses  of 
history."     We  can  all  become  sons  of  God,  just  as  He 


ingen,   1888. 


1  Baur  regarded  the  first  Christians  as  Ebionites,  holding  a 
merely  human  Christ,  and  explained  the  Divine  Christ  as  a 
development,  of  Paulinism  through  Gnosticism  into  orthodox 
Christology.  But  Harnack  well  says  "this  theory  did  not 
unlock  any  problems,  though  it  professed  to  unlock  all  "  ( Con- 
temporary Beview,  Aug.,  1886).  The  school  of  Ritschl  see 
that  the  Divinity  of  Christ  is  not  a  product  of  second  century 
thought,  but  must  be  recognized  in  Apostolic  circles.  Hence 
the  supreme  importance  of  the  interpretation  of  the  testimony 
of  Apostolic  men,  and  the  witness  of  Christ  Himself  as  given 
by  them. 

2  Dogmengeschichte,  Freiburg,  1886.  I.  S.  39. 


26 


Critical  and  Biblical  Prolegomena 


was  Sou  of  God.'  Schenkel  says:  "Jesus  was  the 
only  man  who  realized  and  presented  the  image  of 
God  in  His  life  as  perfectly  as  this  could  be  done  in 
the  limits  of  human  nature."  ^ 

All  these  critics  teach  that  Jesus  was  sinless,  the 
ideal  man,  hence  a  break  in  the  continuity  and  soli- 
darity of  sinful  humanity,  a  moral  and  spiritual  mira- 
cle. Strauss  detects  here  at  once  a  great  inconsistency, 
and  declares  Jesus  could  be  the  "  only  man  "  j)erfectly 
bearing  the  likeness  of  God,  if  He  were  what  the 
orthodox  teach,  the  only-begotten  Son  of  God.^  Both 
the  monistic  school  of  Lipsius  and  Pfleiderer,  and  the 
dualistic  school  of  Ritschl  agree  that  the  epoch-mak- 
ing teaching  of  Jesus,  in  opposition  to  that  of  the 
Jews,  lay  in  His  doctrine  of  the  Divine  Fatherhood 
and  His  own  unique  relation  to  God  as  Son.  The 
heart  of  Christianity,  Lipsius  says,  is  "  faith  ir  God 
the  Father,  who  reveals  Himsv  ^f  in  the  Son  as  expiat- 
ing and  redeeming  love."*    AViv     'H  noticing  other 

1  Gifforcl  Lectures  on  the  Philosophy  ana  Development  of 
Jteligion.     Edinburgh,  1894.     Vol.  II,  p.  22. 

2  CharakterhiklJesu.     Wiesbaden,  4  Ed.  1873,  S.  3. 

3  Die  Ilalben  unci  die  Gamen,  Birlin,  1865,  S.  52.  He 
says  further  {Der  alte  und  der  neue  Glaj  '^e,  S.  43),  speaking  of 
the  Divinity  of  Christ:  "It  is  certainly  the  central  doctrine  in 
Christianity.  Here  the  founder  la  at  the  same  time  the  most 
prominent  object  of  worship.  The  system  based  on  Him  loses 
its  support  as  soon  as  He  is  shown  to  be  lacking  in  the  qualities 
appropriate  to  an  object  of  religious  worship." 

4  Die  JBauptptmkte  der  Christl.  Glaubenslehre,  in  Jahrh.  f. 
Prot.  Theol.,  1889,  H.  I.  S.  18.  But  this  school  protest  against 
building  Christianity  upon  the  Person  of  Christ.  Lipsius  de- 
clares that  all  reverence  for  anything  that  appears  to  the  senses 
is  idolatry;  all  belief  in  external  facts  as  such  is  superstition 


to  the  Nicene  Theology. 


27 


opinions  about  Christ,  we  may  observe  that  there  un- 
derlie these  recent  views  at  least  two  presuppositions, 
which  prevent  them  from  reaching  the  Biblical  concep- 
tion of  our  Lord.*     The  first  is  the  theory  of  Strauss, 
refurbished  by  Pfleiderer,  that  Christianity  was  en- 
tirely natural  (A  c.  p.  1.)  in  its  origin  and  growth,  and 
anything  superhuman  spoken  or  done  by  Jesus  was 
ascribed  to  Him  by  the  heated  imagination  of  His 
disciples.      The  Church  doctrine  of  the  Incarnation, 
resurrection  and  ascension  involves  "  an  absolute  mir- 
acle," and  that  is  impossible.     The  other  is  the  theory 
of  Ritschl,  already  referred  to,  which  makes  all  the 
words  of  Christ  pass  through  the  double  strainer  of 
(1)  "No  metaphysics,"  and  (2)  our  religious   judg 
ments  of  value,  leaving  in  them  no  theoretical  knowl 
edge.     And,  as  judgment  is  always  a  present  experi 
ence,  the  preexistent,  the  Divine   Christ  in  Himself 
and  the  post-existent  Jesus,  with  all  His  eschatology 
are  filtered  out  as  philosophical  dregs.    The  one  theory 
builds  the  incarnate  Son  of  God  out  of  the  imagina- 
tion of  the  Apostles.'^     The  other  theory  makes  Him 
a  product  of  our  own  imagination.     Yet  both  claim  to 
give  us  the  historical  Christ.^ 


(Glaube  unci  Zeben,  1871,  S.  18f.),  Jesus  was  only  organ,  or 
bearer,  or  first  revealer  of  the  principle  of  Christianity;  but  He 
was  not  a  Redeemer.     To  worship  Him  would  be  idolatry. 

1  They  find  Revelation  in  Christ,  not  God  in  Christ. 

2  Pfleiderer  says  the  Incarnation  of  Christ  *'  undoes  the  con- 
ception of  history  from  the  bottom"  (l.  c.  p.  3);  for  Jesus  was 
only  "a  powerful,  prophetic  personality,"  who  led  men  "to 
find  in  Him  their  own  better  selves." 

3  The  intangible,  imaginary  character  of  Jesus  for  men  of 
the  Ritschlian  school  appears  well  in  the  reply  of  Herrmann  to 


2S 


Critical  and  Biblical  Prolegomena 


What,  then,  we  ask  again,  did  Jesus  think  of  Him- 
self ?  His  first  recorded  words  are  of  Divine  Sonship: 
"Wist  ye  not  that  I  must  be  in  the  things  of  My 
Father?"     (Luke  xi,  49). 

The  things  of  God  are  His  things;  and  He  speaks 
as  if  Joseph  and  Mary  should  have  kno^vn  it.  Every 
Jew  knew  that  he  was  a  child  of  Abraham.  Jesus 
knew  that  He  was  also  a  descendant  of  David.     Now 


ii  ■  I 


Zahn's  objection  that  a  Christ  who  died  eighteen  hundred  years 
ago  and  disappeared  could  not  help  us  now.  He  says  such  a 
conclusion  is  not  necessary;  for  "he  who  so  concludes  is  already 
tangled  up  in  the  theological  view  that  in  order  to  be  able  to  call 
Jesus  his  Redeemer  a  man  must  be  able  to  heap  all  possible 
honors  upon  Him.''  That  must  mean  that  he  is  less  than  the 
"altogether  lovely  one,"  less  than  Divine.  Speaking  of  "all 
possible  honors"  given  Christ,  Herrmann  continues,  "  And  that 
is  not  true.  For  Jesus  redeems  us  not  through  what  we  make 
Him  to  be,  but  through  what  He  works  upon  us.  The  simple 
fact  that  Jesus  so  lived,  and  presented  Himself  to  mankind  with 
such  claims  makes  me  learn  to  look  at  the  world  in  which  this  hap- 
pened quite  otherwise. ' '  He  holds  it  is  utterly  absurd  to  hold  that 
we  cannot  "recognize  in  the  man  Jesus  our  Redeemer,"  without 
believing  the  account  A  His  resurrection  or  other  miracles  of 
His  life  {Ztft.f.  Theol  u.  Kirche,  1894.  S.  278).  Now  unless 
we  are  here  lost  in  Ritschlian  "mysticism"  we  must  suppose 
that  Christ  can  redeem  us  without  our  having  any  clear  concep- 
tion of  His  character.  The  person  of  Jesus  has  no  real  relation 
to  His  work.  John  the  Baptist,  or  a  voice  from  a  cloud  preach- 
ing the  Sermon  ^n  the  Mount,  could  be  our  Redeemer  just  as 
well  as  Jesus  Christ.  We  are  told  repeatedly  that  we  must  go 
back  to  the  historic  Christ,  but  none  of  the  Ritschlian  theolo- 
gians has  jet  answered  satisfactorily  the  question,  how  do  we 
get  to  the  historic  Christ  and  how  does  He  come  to  us  ?  He 
cannot  be  found  in  the  congregation  of  believers,  as  Ritschl 
holds,  for  we  must  ask  these  believers  how  they  become  par- 
takers of  Christ  and  are  sure  of  their  own  faith. 


to  the  JVicene  Theology. 


the  young  Christ  realizes  that  He  is  the  Son  of  God. 
He  puts  Himself  with  God  together  as  distinct  from 
Joseph  and  Mary.  At  His  baptism  this  divine  self- 
consciousness  came  to  solemn  public  expression.  The 
incarnate  Christ  began  his  ministry  beneath  the  opened 
heavens.  The  Spirit  of  God  that  moved  upon  the 
waters  at  creation,  now  rested  upon  Him  who  is  the 
first  born  of  all  creation,  while  the  Father  said:  "This 
is  my  beloved  Son  in  whom  I  am  well  pleased."  The 
reply  of  Jesus  to  John  responds  to  all  this  heavenly 
recognition:  "  Suffer  it  now :  for  thus  it  becometh  us 
to  fulfill  all  righteousness."  He  here  teaches,  first, 
His  consciousness  of  being  able  to  fulfill  all  righteous- 
ness; second,  that  His  n=omentary  submission  to  John 
did  not  represent  their  real  relations;  and  third,  that 
it  was  a  part  of  His  divine  mission  to  endure  this  self- 
humiliation.^ 

The  title  which  He  gave  Himself — Son  of  Man — 
expressed  the  same  high -consciousness.  He  never 
called  Himself  the  servant  of  the  Lord — an  Old 
Testament  title,  which  the  Apostles  later  gave  Him 
(Acts  iii.  13,  26);  nor  Lamb  of  God,  which  John 
gave  Him;  neither  did  He  accept  the  title's  of  teacher 
and  rabbi  offered  him  by  Nicodemus;  nor  that  of 
prophet  given  Him  by  the  woman  of  Samaria.  He  wiva 
conscious  that  His  work  wus  the  condescension  of 
majesty,  a  divine  life  entering  humanity:  and  for  tins 
reason  He  called  Himself  Son  of  Man.  This  designa- 
tion h  s  giv-^n  rise  to  much  discussion,  into  which  we 
cannot  enier.     The  following  results,  however,  seem 


1  Of .  NOsgen.    Geschichteder  N.  T.  Offenbarung.    Miiuoben, 
IBai.     Bd.  I.  S.  150. 


1:1     I 


mM 


30 


Critical  and  Biblical  Prolegomena 


pretty  evident.  Jesus  borrowed  the  words  from  the 
prophet  Daniel,  and  was  conscious  that  He  was  the 
one  there  foretold  as  coming  on  the  clouds  of  heaven 
(Dan.  vii.  13).  He  thereby  put  Himself  as  Messiah 
in  a  relation  to  God  not  thought  of  even  in  Daniel. 
That  prophet  spoke  of  kingdoms  of  beasts  appearing, 
the  lion,  the  bear,  the  leopard,  the  beast  with  ten 
horns — and  after  this  reign  of  animals  came  the  rule 
of  humanity;  but  Jesus'  thought  moves  in  the  opposite 
direction.  He  is  Son  of  Man,  not  like  Adam,  as  rising 
from  the  animal  world  and  ruling  over  the  creatures, 
but  as  the  Divine  One  coming  upon  the  clouds  in  glory. 
On  the  other  hand,  he  claimed  in  an  absolute  sense  to 
be  Man.  He  knew  that  the  words  "Son  of  man" 
applied  to  Ezekiel,  and  "one  like  the  Son  of  man" 
used  by  Daniel  meant  Him.  He  was  conscious  that 
the  history,  the  destiny,  the  hope  of  humanity  were  all 
in  Him.  Especially  does  He  know  that  the  sins  and 
sorrows  of  men  fall  upon  Him,  and  that  His  death  as 
the  Son  of  Man  is  the  path  of  life  for  humanity.  Yet 
with  all  this  consciousness  of  lowly  service  and  humil- 
iation Jesus  publicly  proclaims  Himself  the  Son  of 
God  with  power.  He  knew  that  he  was  more  than  a 
Son  of  David,  and  expounded  Psalm  ex.  1  to  show 
that  He  was  David's  Lord  (Mk.  xii.  37).  He  knew 
that  He  was  ruler  of  devils  and  evil  spirits.  He  heard 
their  repeated  appeals  to  Him  as  Son  of  God  without 
rebuke  (Luke  viii.  28,  etc.).  He  knew  that  He  was 
lord  over  sickness  and  death.  He  knew  that  He  could 
forgive  sins  as  God  can  forgive  sins;  hence  the  horri- 
fied Jews  charged  Him  with  blasphemy  (Matt.  ix.  3). 
He  proved  His  divine  right  to  forgive  by  a  miracle  of 
healing  (Mk.  ii.  10).     He  T^a  conscious  that  "  no  one 


to  the  Nicene  Theology. 


31 


knovveth  the  Son  save  the  Fathe  •:  neither  doth  any 
know  the  Father  save  the  Son,  and  he  to  whomsoever 
the  Son  willeth  to  reveal  Him"  (Matt.  xi.  27).  Such 
stupendous  claims  as  are  here  expressed,  must  mean 
that  Jesus  thought  He  was  divine.  Strauss,  in  his 
coarse  way,  says  if  that  was  not  His  meaning.  He  was 
a  knav^e  or  a  fool.  Pfleiderer,  on  the  other  hand,  is  so 
confounded  by  this  passage,  that  he  declares  it  cannot 
be  an  utterance  of  Jesus.  To  get  rid  of  it  he  puts  tha 
Gospel  of  Matthew  in  the  middle  of  the  second  cen- 
'^iry,  and  holds  the  Divine  Christ  here  depicted  to  be 
a.  creation  of  the  early  Catholic  Church.^  But  Jesus' 
words  here  are  of  a  piece  with  all  His  consciousness  of 
Himself.  He  was  out  of  all  comparison  with  other 
men.  John  the  Baptist  was  the  greatest  born  of 
women,  but  the  least  in  Christ's  Kingdom  was  greater 
than  he.  Jesus'  word  was  far  greater  than  the  words 
of  Jonah.  His  wisdom  and  work  were  greater  than 
those  of  Solomon.  He  was  older  than  Abraham,  who 
reioiced  to  see  His  day.  He  was  one  with  the  Jehovah 
of  Mosf  >»,  Kiid  was  therefore  Lord  of  both  the  sabbath 
day  (  k.  n.  28)  and  the  temple  (Matt.  xii.  0).  He 
knt  r  '}  -.x  v;ai  greater  than  the  temple,  because  He  knew 
that  Gu(  really  and  truly  Avas  in  Him  as  He  never  was 
in  the  teru^/e  (John  ii.  19;  Luke  iv.  17  f.).^  He  put 
His  name  in  place  of  the  name  of  God.  He  taught 
His  disciples  to  pray  the  Father  in  His  name,  thereby 

1  Giffonl  Lectures,  II,  30. 

2  This  snme  divine  consciousness  of  being  Lord  of  the  temple, 
and  h-  above  all  its  laws  aa  Jehovah  is,  shows  itself  in  his  claim 
to  L  '■'•  free"  from  the  temple  tribute,  which  He  paid  only 
"lost  V  e  should  offend  them,"  and  not  because  due  (Matthew 
xvii,  25f.). 


r 


T^^ 


32 


Critical  and  Biblical  Prolegomena 


Hiili 


':■      .^1 


making  Himself  part  of  their  worship,  and  His  power 
part  of  the  answer  to  their  prayers.  In  John's  Gospel 
(xiv.  13,  14),  He  absolutely  identifies  Himself  with 
God.  He  says:  "  If  ye  shall  ask  anything  in  my  name, 
I  will  do  it,"  where  the  answer  to  prayer  is  declared 
to  be  His  act.  Such  devotion  to  Christ  is  taken  for 
granted  here  as  involved  in  the  relation  of  the  believer 
to  Christ;  and  this  fact,  Zahn  says,  is  the  "strongest 
proof  that  praying  ' <»  .Jesus  was  not  a  product  of  theo- 
logical reflection  in  '.  'st  two  Christian  generations, 
but  was  the  natural  e.vpression  of  the  religious  life 
planted  by  Jesus  in  His  disciples."  * 

Jesus  knew  that  He  had  life  in  Himself  as  God 
has  life  in  himself  (John  v.  26).  No  limits  of  time 
bade  him  to  cease  work  on  the  sabbath  any  more  than 
they  commanded  God  to  stop.  As  Jehovah  was  omni- 
present with  Israel  so  Jesus  knew  He  would  be  with 
His  Church  to  the  end  of  the  world.  In  the  name  of 
the  Lord  Old  Testament  saints  did  wonders ;  so  Jesus 
bade  His  disciples  to  cast  out  devils  and  do  mighty 
acts  in  His  name  (Mk.  ix.  39;  xvi.  39).  He  came 
forth  from  God,  He  was  one  with  God,  He  returned  to 
God.  What  more  can  be  said  as  to  His  consciousness 
of  absolute  oneness  with  God  ?  To  call  this  a  man 
having  the  religious  value  of  God  is  to  use  words  that 
have  no  meaning.  To  reject  the  Divine  Christ  be- 
cause He  involves  mystery  and  mystery  is  metaphy- 
sics, is  not  to  get  rid  of  the  difficulty  but  only  to  put 
the  mystery  in  the  wrong  place.'*    To  tell  me  that  the 

1  Skizzen  aus  dem  Lehen  der  Alten  Kirche.  Erlangen,  1894, 
S.  33. 

2  The  Ritschl  theologians  all  accept  the  theo.y  of  two  kinds 
of  knowledge,  theoretical,    which  cannot  be  proven   true,    and 


to  the  Nicene  Theology.  88 

Jesus  of  history  is  to  my  knowledge  a  mere  man,  but 
must  be  to  my  faith  God,  is  to  put  the  mystery  be- 
tween two  parts  of  my  own  nature,  and  is  to  force  me 
to  accept  two  kinds  of  truth  and  two  kinds  of  reality. 
And  that  is  absurd:  it  is  a  doctrine  which  my  common 

practical,  which  rests  upon  moral  certainty.  These  give  two 
'•ealities,  Seinsnrtheile  and  Werthurthdle,  to  the  latter  of  which 
religious  knowledge  belongs.  Of  the  relations  of  these  two 
realities  of  Sein  and  Werth,  all  that  Herrmann  and  Kaftan  can 
say  is  that  they  are  not  wholly  separated  (cf.  Sperl,  in  iV. 
Kirchl.  Ztft.  1890,  IT.  8.).  Hering  says  that  "  the  most  im- 
portant question  at  present  in  theology"  is  that  of  "  twofold 
truth,"  that  is  of  the  relation  of  philosophical  and  religious 
truth  (Lecture — Die  Theologie  umlder  Voricurf  der  '■'■  dopjidtar 
Wahrheit,''^  Zurich,  1886).  It  is  along  this  coast  of  two  kinds 
of  truth  that  the  fleet  of  Ritschl  is  still  moving,  seeking  for  a 
haven  of  rest.  Kaftan  has  recently  come  near  the  shore  at  the 
place  where  faith  and  knowledge  meet.  He  is  now  ready  to 
say  that  "  faith  has  for  the  believer  objective  truth,  and  is 
the  final  and  supreme  truth  for  man,"  or,  as  he  expLiins,  "the 
statements  of  faith  are  practically-based  theoretical  statements" 
rather  than  "judgments  of  value"  (Review  of  O.  Ritschl, 
''Ueber  WertJmrtheile'"  in  Th.  Lit.  Zg.  1895,  No.  7).  He 
thus  admits  that  statements  of  faith  have  a  theoretical  side,  and 
that  faith  itself  contains  an  element  of  knowledge.  He  Avrites; 
"  there  is  only  one  truth,  and  all  truth  is  from  God  "  (cf.  Ztjt. 
f.  Th,  ti.  Kirchc,  I.  S.  601).  Here  we  are  back  nearly  or 
quite  to  the  historical  theology,  which  makes  faith  inseparable 
from  certain  facts  and  doctrines.  Here  the  character  of  Clirist, 
His  work,  His  teachings  are  ready  to  support  faith  and  not 
leave  it  resting  only  upon  our  religious  impressions  of  what  He 
taught  or  was.  The  vicious  alternative  of  living  faith  or  a  dead 
acceptance  of  dogmas,  which  the  school  of  Ritschl  present  ad 
nauseam,  is  simply  a  man  of  straw;  for  no  intelligent  Christian, 
much  less  theologian,  pretends  to  defend  anything  but  both 
sound  doctrine  and  a  vital  faith  as  the  practical  proof  of  such 
doctrine. 


i;i 


!il 


i 

hi 

i 

I          : 

:-      :' 
!         ] 

!            ': 

! 

J' 

84 


Critical  and  Biblical  Prolegomena 


sense  instinctively  rejects,  and  which  can  not  he  used 
in  the  work  of  convincing  and  converting  men  with  any 
hope  of  success.^  The  proper  place  of  the  mystery  is 
where  the  New  Testament  and  the  Nicene  theology 
leave  it,  in  the  person  of  the  adorable  Redeemer. 

But  not  only  does  the  relation  of  Jesus  to  God  set 
forth  His  divine  Sonship.  His  relation  also  to  the 
Universe  and  the  Church  illustrates  the  same  truth. 
It  is  a  fundamental  position  of  scholars  like  Harnack 
that  Christ  and  Christianity  have  nothing  to  do  with 
Nature.  Cosmological  Christology  he  considers  the 
great  source  of  corruption  in  Christian  doctrine. 
Through  this  opening  Greek  thought  flooded  and  per- 
verted Christianity.^  And  the  only  way  to  regain 
primitive  religion  is  to  give  up  all  dogma,  and  return 
to  Jesus  teaching  the  Fatherhood  of  God  and  the 
Brotherhood  of  Man.  Now  it  is  plain  at  once  that 
such  a  theory  locks  Jesus  up  in  His  own  world.^  Peter 
calls  out  sinking:  "Lord  save  me,"  but  Jesus  must 
answer  with  Ritschl  that  miracles  of  walking  on  the 

1  Such  a  view  leads  us  back  to  the  scepticism  and  accepti- 
lation  theories  of  Du:  ■i  Scotus  which  killed  scholastic  theology, 
and  must  kill  all  theology,  because  they  bid  us  believe  that 
what  is  historically  and  philosophically  false  may  yet  be  re- 
ligiously and  subjectively  true. 

2  Harnack,  Dof/mcngeschichte,  I,  Ch.   IV. 

8  Harnack  is  forced  to  admit,  however,  that  the  facts  of 
Christianity  do  involve  a  theory  of  these  facts.  He  says:  *'  So 
far  as  God  as  the  Father  of  Jesus  Christ  is  to  be  the  omnipotent 
Lord  of  heaven  and  earth,  the  Christian  religion  includes  a 
particular  knowledge  of  God,  of  the  woi'lfl  and  of  the  purpose 
of  created  things  "  {Outlines  of  Hist,  of  Dogma,  English 
translation,  New  York:  1893,  p.  1).  Herrmann  also  tries  to 
get  the  feet  of  his  faith  upon  the  ground  of  historic  facts  but  to 


to  the  Nicene  Theology/. 


8& 


water  have  no  objective  value,  and  that  His  revelation 
of  the  love  of  God  cannot  enter  the  realm  of  nature. 
He  could  not  say,  "  Lazarus  come  forth,"  or  "  Damsel 
arise."  The  Romans  crucified  and  buried  Him,  and 
Harnack  says  the  testimony  of  Apostles  gives  "  not 
the  least  occasion  to  think  that  Jesus  did  not  remain 
in  the  grave." 

But  what  of  the  testimony  of  Jesus  Himself? 
He  knjw  He  could  save  Peter  and  said:  "Where- 
fore didst  tho'i  doubt?"  The  wind  ceased,  the 
ship  was  at  land,  and  the  disciples  "  worshipped 
Him,  saying,  of  a  truth  thou  art  the  Son  of  God" 
(Matthew  xiv  33).  He  knew  all  power  was  given 
Him,  and  so  He  gave  all  power  to  His  followers, 
to  command  the  forces  of  nature,  disease  and  death. 
To  get  rid  of  Christ  in  nature,  therefore,  the 
Ritschl  men  must  get  rid  of  Him  in  history:  hence 
Harnack  says  again,  when  pressed  respecting  Christ's 
resurrection,  that  "  History  can  afford  faith  no  aid." 
It  is  "  folly  to  believe  in  any  manifestations  made  to 
others."  ^     The  miracles  of  Jesus,  His  power  as  Son  of 

keep  the  wings  of  his  "  disposition  "  so  active  that  no  weight 
shall  rest  upon  these  facts  (Cf .  his  Wcirum  hedarf  unser  Glaube 
geschicht.  Thatsachenf  2ed.  Halle,  1892,  and  Ztft.f.  Th.  u.  Kirche 
1894,  H.  4).  He  says:  "Our  faith  would  cease  to  be  Chris- 
tian, if  it  were  not  able  to  find  in  historic  facts  the  ground  of 
itself";  yet  the  facts  are  no  part  of  the  faith.  He  finally  con- 
cuudes  that  Christian  faith  rests  upon  "  a  single  fact,  which  we 
ourselves  experience  as  such  "  {Ztft.  S.  259);  that  is,  it  is  an 
inner  fact,  which  outer  facts  only  occasion.  We  are  left  again 
in  the  air. 

1  Dogmengeschichte.  I.  S.  14.  Of  the  objection  long  ago 
urged  by  Lessing,  and  taken  up  by  Harnack  and  others,  that 
"  accidental  truths  of  history  can  never  form  the  foundation  for 


1 

:ii;  1 

1 

li 

il  f 


f 

li  '; 

ii  ; 


,!i 

'i    t 

; "  .'1 

;  I 

■  \ 

^'\ 

■,  i 

'■'• 

1' 

■■ "  ''. 

. 

j 

jLk. 

il 

36 


Critical  and  biblical  Prolegomena 


God  over  the  universe,  form  part  of  the  history  of 
Christ ;  but  all  this  must  be  cast  aside  on  the  flimsy 
pretext  that  faith  and  knowledge  are  different  things. 
But  if  it  is  folly  to  let  faith  rest  upon  anybody's  testi- 
mony, what  shall  we  say  to  the  fundamental  claim  of 
Ritschl  to  build  all  Christianity  upon  Christ's  own 
testimony  to  himself  ?  Jesus  tells  me  that  God  has 
given  Him  all  things  for  me,  power  over  nature,  man 
and  the  devil:  but  how  can  I  venture  all  upon  the 
words  of  a  man  about  whom  my  history  and  general 
knowledge  give  me  little  but  uncertainty  and  contra- 
diction ?  ^ 

The  other  point  to  be  noticed  is  Christ's  con- 
sciousness in  relation  to  His  Kir'  dom.  This  is  far- 
reaching.  Jesus  is  not  so  much  a  founder  of  a  new 
Kingdom,  as  Ritschl  teaches,  as  a  restorer  and  perfecter 

eternal  truths  of  reason,"  Martensen  observes  {Brief wechsel,  II, 
199)  that  Nicodemus  made  a  similar  remark  to  Jesus;  and  re- 
ceived the  nf ormation  that  the  question  here  was  about  higher 
things,  namely  regeneration  and  redemption.  The  revelation 
of  Christ,  also,  with  its  great  facts  is  no  *'  accidental  truth  of 
history,"  but  "  the  all-explaining  centre  of  history,  the  unveil- 
ing of  an  eternal  plan."  A  personal  Christ  is  necessary;  and 
He  is  necessary  here  and  now  for  every  sinner.  The  heart  of 
Christianity  is  ever  '<  Christ  and  communion  with  Him.  For 
only  the  personal  can  save  the  personal "  {ib. ).  Both  Marten- 
sen  and  Dorner  hold  the  saying  of  Luther:  "We  have  no 
painted  sin,  therefore  we  can  have  no  painted  Christ,"  as  de- 
cisive against  all  those  who  try  to  turn  the  real,  historic,  and 
divine  Christ  into  an  impression  or  an  ideal. 

1  Harnack  attempts  to  meet  this  and  other  objections  drawn 
from  history  against  his  view  of  Christ,  in  a  lecture.  Das 
Christenthum  und  die  Geschichte,  Leipzig:  Hinrichs,  1896. 
Cf.  my  notice  of  it  in  The  Presbyterian  and  Reformed  Review, 
April,  1896. 


to  the  Nicene  Theology, 


87 


of  the  Kingdom  of  God  already  planted  in  Israel.* 
His  lofty  conception  can  be  seen  in  His  consciousness 
of  Himself  as  both  Messiah  of  Israel  and  final  Judge 
of  all  mankind. 

The  hojie  of  the  Old  Testament  runs  along  two 
lines,  the  ont  that  of  the  expected  Messiah,  the  other 
that  of  the  great  and  terrible  day  of  the  Lord.  But 
these  prophecies  of  joy  and  sorrow,  of  triumph  for 
Israel  and  judgment  upon  their  enemies,  were  not 
brought  into  connection  or  unity  by  Jewish  theol- 
ogy. Jesus,  however,  at  once  knew  himself  to  be 
fuliiller  of  both.  He  was  the  consolation  of  Israel,  a 
light  to  lighten  the  gentiles,  and  beyond  all  the  King, 
the  Judge  before  whom  "  shall  be  gathered  all  na- 
tions," and  whose  divine  sentence  shall  decide  man's 
destiny  forever  (Matthew  xxiv.  31f.).  If  the  view 
of  Baldensperger  be  correct,'^  that  in  the  circles 
of  Jewish  pietists  in  vhe  century  before  Christ,  the 
Messiah  was  already  spoken  of  as  the  Divine  Judge 
and  as  sharing  the  titles  and  attributes  of  Jehovah, 
that  fact  would  only  increase  our  assurance  that  Jesus 
meant  His  words  to  be  taken  with  their  highest 
possible  meaning.  So  ever-present  was  this  con- 
sciousness of  being  Head  over  all  things  to  the  Church, 
and  Judge  over  all  things  to  the  world,  that  when 
dragged  before  the  high  priest  and  asked:  "Art 
thou  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  Blessed?"  He  an- 
swered: "I  am ;  and  ye  shall  see  the  Son  of  man 
sitting  on  the  right  hand   of  power,  and  coming  in 

»  Cf.  I  Chron.  xxix.  11;  II  Chron.  xiii.  8;  Ps.  xxii.  28; 
Dan.  vii.  18,  22,  27;  Obed.  21. 

2  Dai  Sdhstbevniastaein  Jeatiy  2d  Ed.  1892,  S.  85f. 


<p 


I  i 

I! 

I!  I 


fi 


i 

1 

; 

.;   1 

i       ^'1 

'i 

1 

1 

i 

^  iiit 

1 

'i 

!  ■    i 

: :  1 

;|  ; 

V      ; 

i 

J'; 

ii 

38 


Critical  and  Biblical  Prolegomena 


the  clouds  of  heaven  "  (Mk.  xiv.  62).  The  Jewish 
judge  knew  what  such  words  meant,  and  rent  his 
clothes  over  the  blasphemy  against  God,  for  Jesus 
claimed  the  place  of  Jehovah.  To  sit  in  final  judg- 
ment upon  all  men  was  the  highest  function  of  Deity 
in  relation  to  the  human  race. 

Christ's  consciousness  of  being  the  Divine  Head  of 
the  Church  was  equally  certain.  This  is  strikingly 
set  forth  in  three  passages  of  the  first  Gospel,  the 
Gospel  most  Jewish  in  its  coloring.  In  Matthew 
xvi.  15,  Jesus  asked  the  Apostles:  "Whom  say  ye 
that  I  am?"  Peter's  response  for  the  Twelve  was: 
"  Thou  art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God." 
Son  of  God  here  means  more  than  a  synonym  for 
Messiah^,  and  more  than  a  title  of  honor ;  for  it  was 
not  in  the  way  of  jnessianic  hopes  of  a  Ki^igdom^  but 
through  disappointment,  which  showed  the  disciples 
the  spiritual  greatness  of  the  Son  of  God,  that  they 
came  to  this  confession.^  Two  things  of  great  im- 
portance here  come  together,  viz.,  the  first  public  con- 
fession of  the  Apostles  that  Jesus  is  the  Son  of  God, 
and  the  first  mention  of  the  Church.  The  disciples 
said :  "  We  believe  that  Jesus  th'3  Messiah,  the  Son 
of  Man,  is  the  Son  of  the  living  God."  Here  is  the 
heart  of  all  the  Nicene  theology,  the  first  christologi- 
cal  creed;  and  upon  this  creed  Christ  built  His 
Church.  He  endorses  the  confession  of  the  Apostles 
as  an  echo  of  His  own  consciousness  of  Himself.'    He 

1  Against  Beyschlag,  Leben  Jesu,  II,  284.   Cf.  X'^sgen,  I, 
393. 

2  Cf.  Buchrucker,  in   Neue  Kirch.  Zeitschrift,  1895,  H.  I. 

8  Cf.  also  Johnxvii.  8,  where  Jesus  said  later,  "They  have 
surely  known  that  I  came  out  from  Thee." 


to  the  Nicene  Theohxjij. 


39 


calls  Peter  blessed  for  seeing  in  the  lowly  Son  of  Man 
the  Son  of  the  Blessed.  He  declares  only  God  the 
Father  could  have  revealed  such  a  stupendous  truth 
to  him.*    The  sole  Confession  of  Faith   sanctioned  by 

1  It  is  important  to  observe  that  Jesus  also  says  (Matthew 
xi.  27)  that  "no  man  knoweth  the  Son  but  the  Father";  hence 
only  from  the  Father  could  a  full  knowledge  of  the  Son  come  to 
Peter.  It  is,  therefore,  not  mysticism  to  hold  with  Christ  that 
believers  may  know  both  the  Father  and  the  Son,  learning  of 
each  through  the  other  (cf.  Luke  x.  22).  There  is  no  doubt 
but  the  confession  of  Peter  and  Christ's  words  about  it  are  genu- 
ine (see  ^ti»(i\\,Auss('.rc<(n(>ni)Sche  Paralleltexte  zit den Ev(i))gelien. 
Heft  II,  on  IMatt.  and  Mk.  1894,  S.  185,  and  Wendt,  Teaching 
of  Jesus,  Edinburgh,  1892,  II,  125).  Wendt  calls  the  words  of 
Peter  "  the  close  of  a  period  of  development  on  the  part  of  the 
disciples  "  (I,  886);  and  this  culmination  of  their  learning  was  a 
confession  of  "the  Son  of  God  in  a  pre-eminent  sense."  He  well 
points  out,  further,  that  "this  full,  unique,  mutual  knowledge 
on  the  part  of  the  Father  and  the  Son,"  such  as  Jesus  was  con- 
scious of  and  Peter  confessed,  "  stands  in  necessary  connection 
with  their  Fatherhood  and  Sonship"  (II,  120);  though  he  falls 
away  into  Monarchianism.  to  make  the  relation  of  Father  and 
Son  ethical,  a  relation  of  love.  NOsgen  well  urges  in  reply  (I, 
291)  that  the  equal  relation  of  Father  to  Son,  a  relation  of  knowl- 
edge as  well  as  affection,  implies  more  than  ethical  oneness;  it  in- 
volves sameness  of  being.  All  these  mediating  attempts  be- 
tween the  naked  rationalism  of  Strauss  and  Renan  and  the 
teachings  of  the  Church  land  in  some  form  of  Monarchianism, 
whether  it  be  oneness  with  the  Divine  Consciousness,  as 
Schleierraacher  taught;  or  ethical  oneness,  as  set  forth  by  Rothe, 
Wendt  and  others  of  the  Ritschl  school;  or  Beyschlag,  basing 
Christ's  consciousness  of  a  perfect  relation  of  •  Sonship  to  God 
upon  the  transcendental  ground  of  an  impersonal,  divine-human 
principle,  eternally  preexistent  in  the  Godhead  {Leben  Jesu  I, 
191).  Every  such  attempt  leaves  Jesus  either  a  mere  man, 
however  exalted,  or  else  a  mere  mode  of  divine  manifestation. 
(Cf.  Orr,  1.  c.   p.   463).     It  does  not  meet  the  views  of  the 


I;  \ 


lli 


40 


Critical  and  Biblical  P rolefjomena 


'I 

i- 

1 

'i              -.I 

'■              '    I 

"1 

■kuiL^illli ; 

Jesus  was  that  of  His  own  Divinity.  The  other  two 
passages  in  Matthew  are  xi.  27-30:  "All  things  are 
delivered  unto  me  of  my  Father,"  therefore,  "  Come 
unto  mo  all  ye  that  labor  and  are  heavy  laden  and  I 
will  give  you  rest,"  and  xxviii.  18-19:  "  All  power  is 
given  unto  me  in  heaven  and  in  earth.  Go  ye  therefore 
and  teach  all  nations."     Here  Jesus  declares  that  He 

IJiblo  or  Hatisfy  tlio  consciousness  of  the  Church.  It  makes 
the  Incani.'ition  einj)ty  and  meaningless.  It  makes  the  cruci- 
iixiou  of  small  moment;  for  the  death  of  a  good  man 
could  be  of  little  weight  in  solving  the  destinies  cf  humanity. 
It  seta  aside- as  the  school  of  Ritschl  docs — the  doctrines  of 
sin,  rcgonoratioii,  sacrifice,  personal  relation  to  God,  and 
cschatology,  as  taught  in  Scripture;  because  Jesus  if  only  a 
great  teacher,  choosing  the  aim  of  God,  and  showing  us  how  to 
choose  by  free  Avill  the  same  aim  and  enter  God's  kingdom, 
calls  us  only  to  a  Hfe  of  virtue,  wdiich  each  can  begin  and  end 
as  did  Jesus  Himself  the  work  entrusted  to  Ilim.  The  whole 
system  of  Ritschl  is,  in  the  best  sense,  Moralism,  or  the  t'ae- 
ology  of  an  ethical  Kingdom  of  God  (cf.  Grau,  Jahrh.  f.  Protest. 
Tlieoloyie,  1889,  II.  H).  Its  first  step  is — no  metaphysics  in  re- 
ligion. Its  second  step  is — all  Christianity  in  Christ.  Its 
thin!  step  is — through  trv.st  in  God  and  forgiveness  as  Jesus 
taugl  t — entrance  into  an  ethical  Kingdom.  Its  final  step  is — 
rising  by  a  life  of  love  and  virtue  above  all  the  limitations  and 
hindrances  of  the  natural  life.  We  know  that  Christ  and 
Christianity  are  true,  first  because  of  the  impression  which 
Jesus  makes  upon  us,  and  second  because  that  impression  Is 
found  to  correspond  to  all  legitimate  demands  of  religion.  In 
this  last  particular,  however,  Ritschl  is  forced  to  go  to  natural 
theology  for  the  postulates  by  means  of  which  he  tests 
the  religiom  value  of  Christ  and  His  revelation  {R.  n.  V.  I,  408; 
III,  14).  Here  again,  his  two  kinds  of  truth  divide  his  house 
against  itself  (cf.  Orr,  in  the  Expository  Times,  Sept.  1894; 
and  Frank,  Ueber  die  Kirchl.  Bedeutxing  der  Theologie  A. 
Jlitschls.     2d  Ed.  Erlangen,  1888,  S.  39.) 


to  the  JVicenc  TheoJotiy. 


41 


V 


knows  God  as  woUas  God  knows  Ilira.  All  that  is  di- 
vi!\e  is  in  Him  for  tho  hulvation  of  man,  hence  His  call 
to  the  weary  and  ])urdened:  all  power  for  convert- 
ing sinners  is  also  in  Him,  hence  His  conmiission  to 
the  Apostles:  Go  teach  the  nations.^  The  Creed  of 
the  Cluirch,  the  call  to  the  unconverted,  the  ministry 
of  the  gospel  all  rest  upon  the  consciousness  of  the 
Divine  Christ.  He  knows  that  a  church  is  two  or 
three  gathered  in  His  name;  He  knows  that  all 
doctrinal  and  discijdinary  binding  and  loosing  depend 
upon  His  presence  in  the  Church  (Matt,  xviii.  17-20)-; 
He  knows  that  through  union  with  Him  Christians 
reached  greater  spiritual  joys  than  Israel  did  in  the 
Covenant  with  Jehovah  (John  xvi.  23).  lie  knows 
that  the  Jews  said,  "  Salvation  belongeth  unto  the 
Lord";  but  He  also  knows  that  henceforth  salvation 
belongs  to  Him.^  Heaven  and  hell  depend  upon  ac- 
ceptance or  rejection  of  Him.*     Home  or  friends  or 

1  111  like  nuinner  St.  Paul  was  converted  by  the  first  vision 
of  the  Divine  Christ  (Acts  ix.  6),  and  sent  forth  as  a  mission- 
ary Ly  the  second  vision  of  the  same  exalted  Lord,  who  said: 
"  I  will  send  thee  far  hence  unto  the  Gentiles"  (Acts  xxii.  21). 

2  Cf.  Beyschlag,  Die  Christ.  Gemeincleverfassunrf,  1874. 
S.  7f. 

8  It  is  important  to  notice  that  Jesus  did  not  declare  sins 
forgiven  but  imjxrrted  forgiveness  of  sins,  showing  that  He 
Knew  He  had  the  power  to  pardon.  The  scribes  well  felt  that 
such  a  claim  was  blasphemy  for '  *  who  can  forgive  sins  but  God 
only?"  (Mk.  ii.  7). 

4  The  tremendous  import  of  Peter's  confession  of  Christ  and 
Christ's  own  claims  as  He  sent  the  Apostles  forth  were  at  once 
recognized  in  the  Church. 

Justin,  as  early  as  A.  D.  140,  appealed  to  the  solemn  state- 
ments that  all  things  were  given  to  Christ  (Dial.  C),  saying: 


n 


r 


42 


Critical  and  .Biblical  Prolegomena 


i!  i 


life  or  the  whole  world  art  nothing  compared  with 
Him.  He  ia  omnipotent  as  God,  and  none  can  pluck  be- 
lievers out  of  His  hand.  He  is  omnipresent  as  God: 
"  Lo,  I  am  with  you  alway  "  (Matt,  xxviii.  20).  He 
and  the  gospel  are  one  and  inseparable  (John  v.  23f.). 
Our  only  hope,  therefore,  is  in  personal  union  with 
Plim  as  the  Lord,  who  gave  His  life  a  ransom  for  us, 
and  made  atonement  with  His  blood  of  the  covenant 
for  the  remission  of  sins.  To  speak  of  His  death  as 
an  accidental  incident  in  His  life  of  moral  obedience, 
and  our  relation  to  Him  as  the  recollection  of  the  life 
He  led  as  teaclier  and  example  eighteen  hundred 
years  ago,  as  is  done  by  Herrmann  and  others,  is  to 
aay  that  Jesus  Himself  and  all  the  Church  have  mis- 
understood His  mission.  He  staked  His  claim  to  be 
the  Divine  Christ  upon  the  prediction  that  believers 
in  Him  as  such,  Hia  elect,  should  come  from  every 
nation  under  heaven,  past  false  Christs  and  false 
prophets,   to  meet    the   Son    of    Man   in   his    gloiy 

"It  is  written  in  the  Gospel  that  He  said,  'AH  things  are  d',iliv- 
ered  unto  me  by  my  Father;  and  no  man  knoweth  ibe  Father 
but  the  Son;  nor  the  Son  bat  the  Father'";  and  argues  from 
these  weighty  pat  sages  tliat  "we  know  Him  to  be  the  iirst- 
begotten  ^f  God  who  'submitted  to  become  man.'"'  Side  by 
side  with  these  sayings  of  Jesus,  Justin  then  puts  the  confes- 
sion of  "  Peter;  since  he  recognized  Him  to  be  the  Christ  the 
Son  of  God,  by  the  revelation  of  His  Father;  and  since  we  find 
it  recorded  in  the  IVlemoirs  of  his  Apostles  that  He  is  the  Son 
of  God."  Justin  here  groups  these  classic  texts  of  the  New 
Testament  in  support  of  the  Divinity  of  Christ,  claims  Apos 
tolic  authority  for  their  teachings,  and  shows  a  familiarity  in 
the  treatment  of  tlie  question  which  must  have  sp?"ung  from 
long  recognition  of  the  Divine  Christ  and  the  Apostles  in  the 
Church. 


I 


to  the  Nkene  Theology. 


43 


(Matt.  xxiv.  U,  24,  30).  The  history  of  Missions  is 
an  ever  growing  proof  in  support  of  the  Divine  char- 
acter and  work  of  our  Lord. 

These  remarks  naturally  bring  us  to  the  Apostolic 
Church  and  its  apprehension  of  Jesus  Christ  and  His 
gospel.  We  have  seen  the  estimate  which  the  Tvies- 
siah  had  of  Himself;  is  that  estimate  accepted  by 
Peter,  Mati^hew,  John,  James,  Paul  ?  And  if  so  ac- 
cepted, what  is  the  value  or  what  the  authority  of 
their  testimony?  The  replies  to  these  cpiestions  are 
very  various;  though  when  they  are  traced  to  their 
real  source  they  form  only  two  dances,  namely,  those 
that  accept  the  Apostolic  teachers  and  writera  as 
inspired  and  authoritative  ex])ounders  of  the  gospel, 
and  those,  who  regard  them  as  good  men  who  hap- 
pened to  be  among  the  first  converts  of  Christ,  but 
whose  ideas  of  Christianity  do  not  differ  in  kind  from 
those  of  other  Christians.  This  is  a  fundamental  md 
far-reaching  difference.  If  we  consider  the  words  of 
John  and  Paul  as  the  Word  of  God,  we  not  only  learn 
thro\!2:;h  them  what  Jesus  said  but  also  Avhat  He 
meant;  whereas,  if  they  only  give  us  their  fallilde  im- 
pressions, their  explanations  are  of  little  value,  and 
their  mistaken  view  of  Christ  makes  it  very  difficult 
to  gather  from  their  representations  jus^t  what  Jesus 
really  said.  Pfleiderer,  as  we  have  seen,  thinks  all  .iie 
Divine  Christology  which  appears  in  the  Nev,'  7 "ta- 
ment  w^as  made  up  by  the  Apostolic  Church  out  of 
Je^vish  Messianic  ideals,  figures  of  speech  found  in 
the  Old  Testament,  Greek  ideas  and  the  religious 
experiences  of  the  disciples  (1.  c,  p.  18).  In  other 
words  the  Divine  Christ  is  a  myth.  The  Scho,)l  of 
Kitsehl,  })y  making  Christ's  work  apply  to  the  Cliu.^ii 


I 


^E 

■  1 

1 

■!• 

;*, 

■* 

■■: 

1 

i 

111 

SH 

.    i 

ii  ; 


i'L   :i 


!  't  ' 


'i  1 


m 


44 


Critical  and  Blhlical  Prolegomena 


as  such,  assigns  more  value  to  the  words  of  Peter  and 
Paul,  as  early  members  of  the  Church;  but  they  have 
no  revelation  to  supplement  that  of  Christ.  Such  a 
revelation  it  is  said  is  unnecessary  and  impossible.^ 
Men  like  Lipsius,  Pfleiderer,  Ilavef^  and  Holtzmann 
are  naturalists,  whether  of  the  theistic  or  pantheistic 
type;  for  them  all  theology  is  natural  theology;  the 
teachings  of  Jesus  as  well  as  of  the  Apostles  are  just 
the  thoughts  of  religious  sages.  But  the  Ritschl 
school  is  peculiarly  anti- naturalist  in  denying  any 
revelation  of  God  to  man  except  in  Jesus  Christ. 
Such  a  theory  smites  in  all  directions.  It  casts  out  the 
Old  Testament,**  for  that  was  not  revealed  through 

1  So  the  English  Deists.  Cf .  Lord  Herbert,  in  Lelancl,  1.  c. 
I,  p.  2  f. 

2  Le  Chritstianisme,   1884. 

«  Yet  it  should  be  observed,  also,  that,  contrary  to  the 
requirements  of  his  own  theory,  Ritschl  was  led  by  his  exeget- 
ical  colleagues,  especially  Diestel,  and  by  his  view  of  Chris- 
tianity as  a  Kingdom  of  God,  a  theocracy,  to  avoid  the  position 
of  Schleiermacher,  who  practically  ignored  tlio  Old  Testament. 
But  Ritschl  makes  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  little  more  than  a 
historic  introduction  to  Christianity;  and,  true  to  his  Kantian 
Moralism,  violently  explains  out  of  them  evcM-ytbing  that  speaks 
of  expiation  as  proteciing  from  the  just  wrath  of  God.  It  is, 
in  his  view,  a  covering  from  the  divine  glory,  which  no  man 
can  see  and  live,  and  not  a  shield  from  the  righteous  indigna- 
tion of  the  Holy  One  of  Israel. 

But  in  this  connection  PHeiderer  asks  two  questions  {Jidirh. 
f.  Prot.  Theoloffie,  1880,  H.  2):  (l)If  God  is  only  love  and  His 
love  is  revealed  only  in  Christ  (Cf.  R.  u.  V.  Ill,  20G),  was 
there  no  revelation  of  God  before  Christ?  If  not,  whence  had 
Israel  the  knowledge  of  God?  Is  the  Old  Testament  a  natural 
growth?  (2)  If  all  God's  revelation  is  love  manifest  in  Christ, 
and  if  all  moral  action  springs  from  love  and  goes  on  in  love, 


to  the  Nicene  Theology. 


45 


Christ.  It  leaves  the  theology  of  Israel,  and  all  the 
piety  of  holy  men  of  old  the  baseless  fabric  of  a  vision. 
It  makes  the  virtues  of  the  Greeks,  and  the  civic  glory 
of  the  Romans  meaningless.  It  presents  Christ  Him- 
self so  cut  off  from  the  Law  and  the  Prophets  which 
He  came  to  fulfill,  that  the  heart  recoils  from  the  arbi- 
trary claim  made  in  His  behalf.  Finally  the  Apos- 
tles must  have  no  authority  in  religion.  It  will  be 
seen  that  such  honoring  of  Christ  as  is  here  offered 
robs  us  of  Old  Testament,  Natural  Theology,  Apos- 
tles, and  practically  of  the  New  Testament  also.  Well, 
what  have  we  left  with  which  to  compare  the  Apos- 
tolic consciousness?  Hatch  points  us  to  the  Sermon 
on  the  Mount  as  the  Gospel  contrast  to  the  Nicene 
Creed.  But  Pfleiderer  declares  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount  is  a  Catholic  program  of  the  Church  of  the 
second  century.  We  may  have  left  remaining,  how- 
ever, the  Gospel  of  Mark,  or  other  sufficient  Gospel 
material  to  give  us  an  iiiqyression  of  Christ.  How, 
then,  does  the  impression  of  Jesus  gained  from  the 
Apostolic  Church  correspond  with  that  gained  from 
the  Gospels? 

I  think  we  may  take  for  granted  that  the  twelve 
Apostles  in  a  three  years'  course  of  study  with  the 
Lord  must  have  acquired  a  rich  deposit  of  instruction. 
The  theological  student  of  those  days  was  expected 
to   remember   his   teacher's   words   "as   a    plastered 

how  did  moral  society  arise  and  continue  before  Christ  came? 
Such  a  theory  makes  the  Law  of  Moses,  the  ethics  of  Aristotle, 
the  Codes  of  Rome,  impossible.  Such  a  position  outstri])S 
Augustine,  who  made  Pagan  virtues  but  splendida  vitia.  It 
also  contradicts  Paul,  who  held  that  the  heathen  knew  God  in 
both  nature  and  conscience  (Uoni.    I,  20  ff). 


f^ 


4G 


Critical  and  Biblical  Prolegomena 


1  i! 


cistern"  holds  water,  neither  adding  to  nor  taking  from 
them.  Jesus  doubtless  referred  to  ample  information 
when  He  promised  the  Spirit  to  bring  to  their  remem- 
brance all  that  He  had  spoken  to  them.  Luke  assures 
us  he  got  his  information  from  eye  witnesses  (i.  2). 
Papias  says  Peter  preached  the  Gospel  of  Mark,  and 
Paul  tells  us  of  transmitting  to  the  churches  what  he 
had  himself  received  (I  Cor.  xv.  3).^  Now  looking 
over  this  transmitted  teaching  of  Christ  in  the  Gospels, 
it  seems  clear  that  the  Church  consciousness  is  in  full 
harmony  with  that  of  Christ.  The  questionings  of 
Judas,  or  Thomas  or  others,  but  confirm  this  impres- 
sion. Hence  Strauss  says  that  the  divinity  of  Clirist 
cannot  be  dispelled  till  the  "  thick,  heavy  cloud  of 
Jewish  delusion  and  superstition"  wi'apped  about 
Him  by  the  Synoptists  is  l^lown  away.^  But  what  is 
true  of  the  Synoptists  is  true,  as  Ritschl,^  Wendt  and 
many  other  liberal  critics  hold,  of  the  Fourth  Gospel;* 
and  the  Christology  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  abundantly 
covers  similar  teachings  of  Paul.^     This  dof ;,  not  mean 

1  Cf.  Jude  V.  17. 

2  N'eue  Leheii  Jesu,  quot'id  in  Engelhard t,  Schenkel  u. 
StraKss.     Erlangen,  1864.     S.  48. 

3  Nippold,  1.  c.  S.     236. 
*  Ilarnack  I,  85. 

5  Tliere  appears  also  a  growl )ig  conviction  of  the  Divinity  of 
Christ  among  the  disciples.  Philip  at  the  beginning  spoke  of 
"  Jesus  of  Nazai'eth,  the  Son  of  Joseph"  (John  i,  45);  but  after 
three  years  in  the  school  of  Christ,  Thomas  uttered  the  convic- 
tion of  all:  "My  Lord  and  my  God"  (John  xx.  28).  The  com- 
mand of  Jesus  early  in  His  ministry  to  Ilia  disciples  not  to 
proclaim  His  Messiahship  helps  explain  the  lack  of  reference  to 
His  official  character  in  the  earlier  parts  of  the  GosikIs.     But 


to  the  JVicene  TheoJogi/. 


47 


that  there  were  not  v^arieties  of  view  among  the  first 
Christians;  for  it  would  be  unreasonable  to  suppose 
that  all  classes  of  converts  could  soon  grasp  the  im- 
port and  fullness  of  the  God -Man.  National  expec- 
tations, and  many  other  imperfect  conceptions  of  the 
Messiah,  must  gradually  be  set  aside  by  spiritual  views 
of  His  Person  and  work.  As  John  the  Baptist  said: 
"  He  must  increase  but  I  must  decrease"  (John  iii.  30). 
It  was  a  time  of  transition,  when  Jewish  and  Chris- 
tian thoughts  were  mixed  in  all  minds.  In  fact, 
though  Peter  and  James  and  John  and  Paul  held 
Jewish  and  Gentile  believers  in  the  unity  of  the  faith, 
the  two  branches  of  the  Church  seem  to  have  practi- 
cally held  apart,*  till  finally  the  ritualism  of  the  men  of 
Israel  gave  up  the  Divine  Christ  for  a  Nazarene  pro- 
phet rather  than  hold  the  Divine-Man  in  a  Brother- 


'iii 


)]r\ 


tliis  silence  went  with  firm  belief  in  Jesus  as  the  Christ  of  God. 
After  the  solemn  confession  of  Peter:  "  Thou  art  the  Christ, 
the  ':io\\  of  the  living  God,"  Jesus  "  charged  His  disciples  that 
they  should  tell  no  man  that  he  was  Jesus  the  Christ "  (Matt, 
xvi.  20).  This  commanded  silence  respecting  Jesus  as  Christ 
makes  all  the  more  emphatic  the  confession  of  Jesus  as  "Son 
of  the  living  God,"  when  He  solemnly  called  it  forth.  What 
was  involved  in  this  Divine  Personality  would  not  be  clearly 
understood  till  aftf.  tiie  resunx'Ction.  Jesus  c.\])lains  the  post- 
ponement of  His  recognition  for  the  very  reason  that  he  was  to 
"  bo  killed  and  be  raised  again  the  third  day  "  (Matt.  xvi.  21). 
Only  in  the  light  of  the  glory  of  the  resurrection  and  ascension, 
He  leaches,  could  His  followers  fully  see  that  the  Son  of  God  was 
manifest  in  the  llesh.  This  is  the  triumjdjant  argument  of  Peter, 
filled  with  the  S})irit,  at  Penteoost  (Acts  ii.  22f). 

1  Cf.  Slater.  The  Faith  and  Life  of  the  Early  Church, 
London,  1892,  Chap,  x.;  and  Hort,  Judaistic  Christianity. 
1804,  p.  3G. 


t     ;l 


I      I 


I'f 


1 


48 


Critical  and  Bihlieal  Prolegomena 


hood  wide  as  humanity.  It  is  significant,  however, 
as  Harnack  remarks  in  another  connection,  that  the 
Apostolic  men  who  recognized  that  Christianity  was  a 
triumph  over  the  Old  Testament  religion,  such  as  Paul, 
John,  and  the  writer  of  Hebrews,  all  regarded  Christ 
as  a  Being  that  came  down  from  Heaven.^  It  was 
their  full  consciousness  of  what  Christ  was  that  made 
them  unable  longer  to  overlook  the  emaciated  christ- 
ology  of  the  Jewish  Christians,  and  provided  most  of 
the  controversial  "elements  which  are  found  in  the 
writings  of  Paul  and  John."  -  But,  notwithstanding 
these  later  developments,  it  still  remains  true  that  the 
great  preponderance  of  Christian  thought  in  the  first 
two  generations  was  essentially  of  one  character  and 
had  its  roots  in  a  Divine  Redeemer.  Harnack  says 
Paul's  doctrine  of  Clirist  took  its  departure  from  the 
"concluding  confession  oi  the  primitive  Church,  that 
Christ  as  Heavenly  Being  and  Lord  of  living  and 
dead,  is  ^vith  the  Father."  Wendt  says  the  Logos 
christ(jlogy  can  be  "  traced  back  to  the  very  earliest 
Christian  times.  We  find  its  foun<latioiis,  the  idea  of 
the  Incarnation  of  a  preexistent  God-like  Being  in 
Jesus  Christ,  though  without  using  the  term  Logos, 
already  in  Paul  and  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews."  ^ 
Let  us  listen  now  to  the  voices  of  this  early  Church. 
The  Apocalypse,  which  is  the  prayer  book  of  Jewish 
Christians,  praises  Jesus  as  "  he  that  liveth  and  was 
dead";  and  is  "alive  for  evermore"  (i.  18),  as  "the 
first  and  the  last"    (ii.  8),  as  "King  of   kings  and 

1  Dogmengeschkhte.     I.  S.  72,  Note. 

2  Slater,  p.  345. 

8  Ucber  A.  IIa7'nack^s  Dogmengeschichte.     Vortrag,  1888. 


It   \ 


to  the  Xicene  Theohxjtj. 


49 


Lord  of  lords."  Ritschl  says  of  these  words:  "John 
rccoixiiizes  the  full  Godhead  of  the  Exalted  Christ,"  ^ 
just  "as  Paul  did";  and  Pfleiderer  declares  "the  simi- 
larity of  the  christology  of  the  Apocalypse  to  that 
of  Paul  is  complete."'-  The  Ej^istle  of  James,  so 
Jewish  in  tone,  nev^er  hesitates  to  call  Jesus  "  the  Lord 
of  Glory"  (ii.  1),  and  sums  up  all  comfort  in  "the 
coming  of  the  Lord  draweth  nigh"  (v.  8).  Peter, 
who  ate  and  drank  and  was  a  daily  companion  with 
Christ,  adores  Him  as  the  Lord  who  is  gracious  (I 
Pet.  ii.  3),  and  urges  believers  to  sanctify  Jesus  as 
"the  Lord  God  in"  their  hearts  (iii.  15).  The  Epis- 
tle to  the  Hebrews  addresses  the  exalted  Jesus,  say- 
ing:  "Thy  throne,  O  God,  is  forev^er  and  ever"  (i.  8), 
and  "  Thou  Lord,  in  the  beginning  hast  laid  the  foun- 
dation of  the  earth."  ^  Harnack  thinks  the  "  cosmo- 
logical  Christology,"  admittedly  here  as  in  I  Peter, 
came  from  Paul.  But  surely  it  is  a  wrong  method  of 
New  Testament  study  to  assign  all  these  lofty  concep- 
tions of  the  Divine  Christ  to  Paul,  and  then  banish 


.ogos. 


1  Entstehung,  1857,  S.  120. 

2  1.  c.  p.  159.  Reuss,  also  the  father  of  the  ''higher  criti- 
cism" of  the  Old  Testament,  says:  "ll  ought  to  be  acknowl- 
edged unhesitatingly  that  Christ  is  placed  in  the  Apocalypse  on 
an  equality  with  God." — Christian  Theolof/y,  18G4,  p.  'h'»7. 

8  Christ  is  called  here  Son  of  God  and  God  in  Ilis  preexist- 
ent  state,  and  not  only  as  a  historic  personality.  This  absolute 
Sonship  is  expressed,  ii,  36  (cf.  Wcstcott  in  loco),  by  the  name 
Son  without  the  article,  to  distinguish  it  from  tl  historic  per- 
sonality of  the  Son,  as  in  iv.  14;  viii.  3,  As  Son  He  was  chosen 
to  become  Revealer  cf  God.  The  revelation  lit  His  work  of 
redemption  did  not  make  Ilim  Son,  for  He  made  the  Avorld. 
Though  He  was  Son,  He  learned  to  live  in  humility  (v.  8). 


! 


?1      i 


11 

I* 

5 


'  (  I;  'i 

1* 


60 


Critical  and  Biblical  Prolegoinena 


them  from  Christianity  as  a  mere  product  of  his  ec- 
static conversion  working  upon  a  mind  full  of  Kabbin- 
ical  conceits.^  Apostolic  Christians  did  not  have  Paul's 
Epistles  at  hand  to  coj)y  from.  The  original  Apostles 
were  never  inclined  to  accept  Paul's  fancies  as  the 
primitive  gospel.  Neither  is  there  the  least  hint  that 
on  the  Person  of  Christ  there  was  any  difference  of 
opinion  among  the  leaders  of  the  Church.-  They  all 
taught,  each  in  his  own  way,  the  body  of  Christian 
truth  given  them  by  Christ.  Paul  adored  Jesus  Christ 
as  Lord,  and  knew  that  every  knee  must  bow  to  Him 
(Phil.  ii.  10,  11).  It  was  no  prize  to  Him,  but  a  mat- 
ter of  divine  right  to  be  equal  with  God ;  for  He  was' 
''over  all,  God  blessed  forever"  (Rom.  ix.  5).  But 
PmuI  takes  for  granted  that  all  other  (Jhristians  thought 
of  Christ  as  he  did.  He  says  the  Jewish  brethren, 
who  differed  from  him  on  circumcisioi>,  preached  the 
same  Jesus  and  the  same  gospel  (H  Cor.  xi.  4). 

This  leads  me  to  notice  that  all  the  worship  of  the 
Apostolic  Church  centered  in  the  Divine  Christ. 
Jesus  died  saying:  "Father  into  thy  hands  I  com- 
mend my  spirit."  Stephen  died  saying:  "  Lord 
Jesus  receive  my  spirit."  Can  we,  then,  pray  to 
Christ  ?  Herrmann  says  it  is  a  dangerous  thing  to  do, 
and  must  be  carefully  held  in  check  by  judgments  of 
value.''    But  the  New  Testament   Church  has  no  such 

1  Loofs  says  Harnack's  view  of  the  origin  of  the  doctrine  of 
Christ's  preexistence  is  a  mere  groundless  hypothesis.  Cf. 
Deutsr.h-Evangd.  Blatter,  xi.  S.  180  f. 

2  Pfleiderer  says  their  identical  Christology  was  the  bond  of 
union  between  Paul  and  the  Jewish  Christians,  1.  c.  p.  130. 

3  It  must  "be  carefully  limited  if  it  is  not  to  work  great 
injury."     (  FtT^cAr,  S.  193.) 


to  the  Nlcene  Theology^ 


51 


;ir-'*'  law 


scruples.  Believers  worshiped  the  crucified  and  risen 
Lord;  and  the  bitterest  accusation  brought  against 
them  by  the  Synagogue  was  the  adoration  of  two 
Gods.*  Christians  differed  about  meats,  and  holy 
days,  and  circumcision,  and  widows  and  orphans;  but 
there  is  not  a  word  of  doubt  about  prayer  to  Jesus. 
Twenty-seven  years  after  the  death  of  Christ,  Paul 
could  write  to  the  Corinthians,  reminding  them  that 
they  represented  all  believers,  and  greeting  tliem  as 
"  sanctified  in  Christ  Jesus,  called  to  be  saints,  with 
all  that  call  upon  the  name  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
in  every  place,  their  Lord  and  ours  "  (I  Cor.  i.  2). 
Zahn  says:"  "The  Old  Testament  worshij)  of 
Jehov^ah,  with  its  religious  significance  undiminished 
and  unchanged,  passed  over  into  the  worship  of 
Jesus"  (S.  8).  This  is  a  marvelous  transition,  for 
the  idea  of  man-worship  was  utterly  abhorrent  to 
Jews;  and  Gentile  Christians  from  the  first  were  ready 
to  die  rather  than  adore  Caesar.  John  heard  a  voice 
(Rev.  xix.  10)  forbidding  him  to  kneel  to  a  glorified 
man;  but  when  he  fell  down  before  Jesus  (xxii.  9) 
he  heard  only  words  of  comfort  and  joy.  The  earliest 
Christian  hymns  are  hymns  to  Christ.^  The  earliest 
Christipn  blasphemy  was  blasjihemy  against  Christ.* 

1  Cf.  Weber,  Altsynagogale  Theologie.  Leipzig,  1880,  S. 
148. 

2  Die  Anhetunf/  Jesu  im  Zeitalter  der  Apostel,  in  Skizzen, 
Erlangen,  1895,  S.  5f. 

8  Rev.  V.  9,  12,  13;  vii.  10;  xiv.  4;  I  limothy  iii.  16,  cf. 
Pliny — "  Carmen  dicere  Christo  quasi  Deo.'''* 

4  James  ii.  Y;  Acts  xiii.  4?,  ''contradicting  and  blasphem- 
ing" against  Jesus;  and  I  Timothy  i.  13,  where  Paul,  reviling 
Jesus  calls  himself  "  a  blasphemer."  Letter  of  Pliny — "  Mali- 
dic&nmt  Christo. ' ' 


52 


Critical  and  Bihlical  Proleyomena 


I 


The  earliest  and  only  Christian  sacraments  were  bap- 
tism in  the  name  of  the  Divine  Christ  or  of  the  Son  of 
God  as  equal  with  the  Father  and  Holy  Spirit,  and 
the  Lord's  Supper,  which  sets  forth  the  remission  of 
sins  which  God  only  can  grant.  To  sin  against  the 
Lord's  body  here  was  to  become  liable  to  eternal  con- 
deinuation  (I  Cor.  xi.  1^2,  34).  Such  wide-spread, 
all-ein])racing  worship  of  Jesus,  extending  far  beyond 
and  before  Paul  and  other  New  Testament  theologians, 
shows  that  the  Church  must  have  learned  it  from  the 
Lord  Himself.  Harnuck  frankly  says:  "He  was  every- 
thing lofty  that  could  be  imagined.  Ev^erything  that 
can  be  said  of  Him  was  already  said  in  the  first  two 
generations  after  His  appearance.  Nay  mOiC,  men 
felt  Him  to  be  and  knew  Him  to  be  the  ever-living 
one,  Lord  of  the  world  and  operative  principle  of 
their  own  life."^  He  adds:  "The  Gentile  Christians 
received  as  the  unanimous  doctrine,  that  Christ  was 
the  Lord  who  was  to  be  prayed  to."^ 

Now  what  shall  we  say  to  these  things?  The 
Christology  of  the  Apostolic  Church  abundantly 
confirms  and  illustrates  the  consciousness  of  Christ. 
It  contains  all  the  essentials  of  the  Nicene  theology. 
If  Paul  was  right,  then  Athanasius  was  not  wrong. 
If  the  New  Testament  is  from  God,  then  the  Logos- 
Christ  cannot  be  rejected  as  a  piece  of  pagan  met- 
aphysics. The  general  answer  which  Pfleiderer, 
Reuan,  Harnack,  and  whatever  their  names,  give 
is  that  the  Divine  Christology,  whatever  its  source, 

1  D.  G.  Vol.  I.  S.  66. 

2  He  elsewhere  (I,  120)  doubts  direct  prayer  to  Christ  in  the 
first  century,  a  mistake  which  Loofs  corrects.  Deutsch-Evang, 
Blatter  xi.  S.  184. 


to  the  Kicene  Theologij. 


53 


is  a  perversion  of  true  Christianity.  Tlioy  pick  out 
a  few  moral  axioms  and  add  tliem  to  their  creed: 
"Jesus  is  the  IMessiah,"  and  declare  that  to  be  the 
Gospel;  all  beyond  that  is  accretion.  For  Pfleiderer 
Christianity  is  Judaism  with  its  national  limits 
strii)ped  off  by  Jesus. ^  For  Ilarnack  Christianity 
is  "looking  back"  to  Jesus  in  history  till  we  become 
sure  that  God  rules  in  heaven  and  on  earth,  and  that 
"God  the  judge  is  also  the  Father  and  Redeemer.^ 
The  beginning  of  this  perversion — Ver-'^chiehimg — he 
iinds  in  the  first  Christians  preaching  who  Jesus  was, 
rather  than  the  words  whicli  lie  spake.  Paul's  gospel 
-was  not  identical  with  that  of  Christ.^  So  the  fatal 
drift  went  on,  through  the  New  Testament  Church 
and  out  into  the  Catholic  Church  till  it  ended  in  the 
deadly  dogma  of    a   metaphysical   Christ  at  Nica^a. 

1  1.  c.  I,  p.  82,  122. 

2  Cf.  Ritsclil,  Avho  makes  our  union  with  Christ  a  "remem- 
brance of  the  finished  life-work  of  Christ. "  Unterricht  in  d. 
Clirist.  Bel  2d  Ed.  S.  23. 

8  D.  G.  I.  S.  93.  Paul  puts  the  death  of  Christ,  it  is  said, 
too  much  in  the  foreground;  as  the  first  Apostles  put  the  Person 
of  Christ  into  too  great  prominence.  These  were  the  two  early 
"  Verschiebungen,"  which,  according  to  Ilarnack,  (1)  made 
Christ  the  center  of  a  circle  instead  of  one  focus  of  an  eclipse  with 
the  Kingdom  for  the  other;  and  (2)  made  the  cross  too  much  the 
symbol  of  all  that  Christ  did  for  us.  But  such  a  view  (a)  ignores 
the  fact  that  Christ  before  his  crucifixion  could  not  set  forth  the 
meaning  of  Ilis  death  fully,  (b)  passes  by  in  silence  the  state- 
ments that  Christ,  after  His  resurrection  (Luke  xxiv.  26,  46), 
taught  his  followers  about  His  death,  (c)  takes  for  granted  that 
both  the  Twelve  and  Paul  failed  to  get  a  true  view  of  Christ's 
Person  and  work,  and  (d)  fi:^ally  holds  that  these  "perver- 
sions" were  as  necessary  in  carrying  on  early  mission  work  as 
they  were  wrong. 


If 


i; 


f 


1  1 

V         ] 
^'      1, 

':      :'' 

1 ' 

4 '' 

54 


Critical  and  Biblical  Prolegomena 


Now  the  ol)jectioii8  which  arise  at  once  to  such  a 
theory  are  obvious  and  many.  It  proceeds  on  the  as- 
sumption that  it  is  wrong  for  reason,  even  the  reason 
of  Apostles,  to  unfold  what  lay  in  Christ's  words.  It 
rejects  all  legitimate  development  of  doctrine,  whether 
in  the  Ntnv  Testament  or  out  of  it.  It  ignores  the 
promise  of  Jesus  to  give  his  disciples  fuller  knowledge 
through  the  Holy  Si)irit.  It  contradicts  the  experi- 
ence and  teachings  of  the  Apostles.  It  opposes  the 
witness  of  the  Spirit  in  the  hearts  of  believers  every- 
where and  ahvays,  who  find  the  doctrines  of  the 
Apostles  the  poAver  of  God  to  salvation  as  the  very 
teachings  of  Christ  Himself. 

There  are  also  two  historical  obstacles  which 
lie  in  the  way  (^f  such  a  theory.  They  are  the 
Scylla  and  Charybdis  of  all  rationalistic  explana- 
tions of  the  origin  of  Christianity.  I  refer  to  the 
resurrection  of  Christ  and  the  conversion  of  St. 
Paul.  All  leading  liberal  critics  admit  that  the  dis- 
ciples believed  that  Jesus  rose  from  the  dead.  The 
Church  was  built  on  that  belief.  At  this  point 
Kaftan  and  Hering  break  out  of  the  liitschl  theory, 
and  hold  that  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  was  both  a 
religious  and  historical  fact.  The  conversion  of  Paul 
and  his  Apostleship  rested  upon  it;'  the  conquest  of 

1  Cf.  Weizsacker,  Das  Apostol.  Zeitalter  der  Chrlstl. 
Kirche,  1886.  S.  GO.  Renan  also  says  that  Paul  regarded  Jesus 
*'  not  as  a  man  who  lived  and  taught  "  but  as  "a  being  wholly 
divine"  {St.  Pmd,  p.  310).  Wendt  (II.  266)  admits  that  the 
disciples  interpreted  Christ's  words  (Math.  xvi.  21;  xvii.  23; 
XX.  19)  to  mean  a  bodily  resurrection;  but  thinks  they  were  mis- 
taken in  Christ's  meaning.  He  meant  that  after  short  delay  in 
death  he  would  resume  the  heavenly  life  with  God. 


i    \ 


to  the  X  Ice  tie  Theolo<jij. 


00 


7/iHstl. 

\\  Jesu8 

'holly 

lat  the 

I'ii.  23; 
re  mis- 
play  in 


the  Roman  world  started  from  the  empty  grave  of  tlie 
Lord.  Jesus  made  his  death  and  r>  surreetion  essen- 
tial parts  of  His  redemj)tive  work.  The  Apostks 
declare  they  saw  Ilim  dead  and  saw  Iliin  risen.  Here 
faitii  and  history  meet  and  cannot  be  torn  apart.  But 
our  critics  attempt  it.  They  make  the  resurrection  a 
subjective  illusion  of  the  disciples,  in  spite  of  PauVs 
appeal  to  James  and  Peter,  himself  and  five  imndred 
others.  As  for  Paul's  relation  to  the  risen  Lord  it 
wai  ill  in  his  own  mind,  llenan  says:  "  The  Christ 
who  personally  revealed  Himself  to  Him  is  his  own 
ghost;  he  listens  to  himself,  thinking  be  hears  Jesus."' 
lu  other  words,  the  Church  was  built  upon  first  a 
vision  or  illusion  of  the  Twelve,  and  second  upon  a 
similar  illusion  of  Paul.  It  is  true  Holsten  admits 
that  Hiis  is  a  very  unsatisfactory  solution;-  it  is  also 
tru<^  til  it  it  leaves  the  origin  of  Christianity  amid 
clouds  of  impressions  no  better  than  the  myths  of 
Strauss.  Still  it  must  be  accepted,  for  Harnack  tells 
us,  like  Hume,  that  no  amount  of  evidence  can  ever 
prove  a  miracle.^  But  with  the  denial  of  the  resur- 
rection and  the  rejection  of  Paul's  account  of  his  con. 

^  History  of  the  orifjins  of  Christianity,  Bk.  Ill,  London: 
Mathieson  and  Co.,  p.  101. 

2  Ztft,  f.  Kirchl.  Wiss.  u.  K.  Lehen,  Article  by  Gebhardt, 
1889,  S.  443. 

3  Cf.  Ritschl,  Entstehxing,  S.  80.  Kcim,  though  a  radical 
critic,  is  compelled  to  say:  "A  sign  of  life  from  Jesus,  a  telegram 
from  heaven  was  necessary  after  the  crushing  overthrow  of  the 
crucifixion,  especially  in  the  childhood  of  humanity."  Hence 
he  concludes  that  Jesus  by  the  Spirit  produced  the  appearances 
of  Himself,  which  the  disciples  saw,  and  took  for  real  bodily 
appearances  of  the  risen  Lord.   (Geschichte  Jesu,  Zurich,  1872; 


?!' 


M 


id 


I  , . 


56 


Critical  and  Biblical  Prolegomena 


version  as  objective  history,  there  is  undermined  the 
doctrine  of  the  Divine  Christ.  Pfleiderer  says  Paul 
manufactured  the  Lord  in  glory  out  of  a  combination 

iii.  S.  604  f).  It  was  a  Christopliany  to  the  souls  of  the  dis- 
ciples; though  not  to  their  outer  vision.  But  such  a  symboliz- 
ing and  spiritualizing  of  the  facts  of  early  Christianity  will  not 
save  them.  If  untenable  historically  they  must  be  given  up  as 
supports  of  religious  teachings.  In  the  days  of  Paul  many  a 
pagan  sage  sought  to  defend  the  gods  by  presenting  them  as 
theophanies,  or  ideals,  or  symbols  of  the  beautiful  and  good; 
but  the  attempt  was  fruitless.  Neither  will  giving  "  values  of 
judgment"  to  the  miracles  and  other  events  objected  to  in  the 
life  of  Jesus  save  them  from  utter  rejection.  The  supposed 
religious  value  of  a  thing  will  always  and  of  necessity  sink 
gradually  to  the  lower  and  real  value  which  merciless  reason 
declures  it  to  possess.  All  the  Apostles  appeal  to  facts,  not  im- 
pressions, when  speaking  of  Christ  and  his  work.  Not  phil- 
osophy or  moralism,  but  the  historical  reality  of  the  death, 
resurrection,  ascension  and  return  of  Christ  was  made  the  basis 
of  redemption.  To  preach  anything  else,  Paul  declares,  would 
make  the  Apostles  and  brethern  "  false  witnesses  "  (I  Cor.  xv. 
14 — 19).  John  makes  eternal  life  and  death  depend  upon  faith 
or  unbelief  in  the  facts  which  he  records  about  Jesus  Christ  (xx. 
81;  I  John,  i,  1,  3).  Both  Jesup  and  the  Apostles  warned 
against  false  projiliets,  who  should  arise  attacking  the  character 
and  work  of  Christ  (Matt.  xxiv.  21:  I  John  ii.  22).  Harnack 
well  points  out  tha^  the  Jews  had  no  idea  of  immortality  apart 
from  the  body  (I.  74);  and  yet  we  are  told  that  it  was  the 
"  conviction  of  the  disciples  that  they  had  seen  the  (risen)  Lord, 
that  made  them  Evangelists"  (I.  75  note).  But  if  they  saw  him 
they  saw  him  bodily.  If  they  believed  Ilim  immortal,  lie  had 
risen  from  the  grave.  Then,  in  the  face  of  Paul's  appeal  to 
facts,  to  eye-witnesses,  Peter,  James,  and  live  hundred  more, 
we  are  told  that  belief  in  the  resurrection  is  the  result  of  long 
Christian  experience,  and  is  not  a  primary  question.  "What 
the  diHcii)lcs  saw  cannot  help  us  at  all."  The  contradiction  of 
Paul  is  comi)lete. 


IK'it 


to  the  Nicene  Theology. 


57 


loug 


of  Messianic  hopes  and  Plato's  conception  of  the  Ideal 
Man.^  The  Ritschl  school  derive  the  divinity  of 
Christ  in  the  Apostolic  Church  from  Rabbinical 
fancies  about  preexistent  persons  and  things  in  the 
mind  of  Paul/'  But  Paul  was  just  the  man  who  most 
shunned  Pharisaic  traditions.  The  jDreexistence  of  the 
Messiah  was  not  a  familiar  idea  to  the  Je^vs;  nor  is  it 
known  in  the  New  Testament  except  among  Chris- 
ians.  Jesus  was  a  man  of  sorrows  and  as  such  the 
"  Heavenly  Man  "  would  be  no  counterpart.^  Besides 
Paul's  teachings  respecting  Christ  are  so  wide  that 
they  include  a  post-existent,  exalted,  divine,  preexist- 
ent Christ  at  every  point  in  their  presentation.'*  The 
mind  of  man  and  the  teachino's  of  all  the  New  Testa- 
ment  inevitably  proceed  from  the  risen  Son  of  God  l;o 
the  Divine  Son  of  God.  It  is  only  by  making  all  the 
miracles  of  the  New  Testament  allegorical  or  of  mere 

1  Pjiul's  Christ  l.s  ^^  but  the  personified  idea  of  man  om  the 
child  of  God''''  (1.  c.  1G4).  "The  hellenistic  mythological  form 
of  his  Christology "  belongs  to  what  is  transitory  in  Paul's 
teaching  and  can  have  "  no  binding  authority  for  us  "  (ITI). 

'^  Cf.  Ilarnack,  D.  G.,  I,  89—93;  710—719;  and  Baldeus- 
jttrger,  I.  c.  85 — 92. 

3  Cf.  Orr,  The  Christian  View  of  God  and  the  World. 
New  York:     Randolph  &  Co.    Lect.  vi.     Note  A. 

"*  Bornemann,  Avho  seeks  to  keep  closer  to  the  teachings  of 
the  Church,  thinks  [Unterricht  ini  Christenthnni,  S.  92  f.)  that 
the  tirst  Christians  not  only  expressed  the  jierniancnt  value  of 
Christ  (1)  by  making  Him  ))reexistent,  but  also  (2)  by  regarding 
Ilim  as  supernatural,  and  (3)  by  teaching  that  he  was  ilie  int^ar- 
nation  of  the  Eternal  Divine  Word  of  Kevelation.  IJut,  apart 
from  the  utter  lack  of  proof  that  the  doctrine  ot  a  preexistent 
Messiah  was  widespread  among  the  .Jews  in  the  time  of  Jesus, 
and  the  consideration  that  we  know  very  little  aliout  current 


9.     1! 


Si      ! 


58 


Critical  and  Biblical  Prolego7nena 


sentimental  value,  as  Weizsacker  does/  that  the  Di- 
vine Christ  and  His  resurrection  can  also  be  removed 
from  their  central  place  in  the  history  of  Christian 
Doctrine. 

Here  we  are  face  to  face  again  with  the  irreconcil- 
able opposites  of  mere  reason  on  the  one  side,  and  of 
reason  and  true  revelation  on  the  other.  Or,  as  the 
alternative  in  this  study  of  the  Apostolic  Church  ap- 
pears, of  the  Greeks  and  the  Germans  on  the  one  hand 
and  the  Apostles  and  the  Church  ever  since  on  the 
other.  Pfleiderer,'^  Hatch,  Harnack  all  agree  that  the 
Divine  Christ  is  an  invention  of  the  Greeks.''     The 


Jewish  theology  in  those  days,  also  the  evidence  afforded  by 
writers  such  as  Brousset  {Jesu  Preclif/t  in  ihrem  Gegensatz  ziim 
Judeutum,  Gottingen,  1892)  that  primitive  Christianity  differed 
more  from  Pharisaic  Judaism  than  it  agreed  Avith  it,  we  must 
face  the  serious  question,  why  it  was  religiously  and  historically 
necessary  for  the  Apostolic  Church  to  create  a  Divine  Christ 
and  build  Christianity  at  once  upon  a  false  foundation. 

1  1.  c.  S.  5  f . ;  so  llarnack  in  his  lecture  cited  above.  See  p. 
19  of  it. 

2  1.  c.  pp.  15G  f.  llarnack  is  also  inclined  to  think  that 
Greek  thought  colored  the  teachings  of  both  Jesus  and  Paul. 

3  According  to  Ilarnuck,  the  Jewish  view  was  that  "earthly 
things  prcuxist  with  God  just  as  they  appear  on  earth."  But  it 
is  plain  that  such  a  theory  docs  not  tit  the  incarnation  of  Christ 
as  conceived  by  Peter  and  Paul.  They  thought  of  the  heavenly 
Jo.i'.  J  as  in  glory,  but  the  incarnate  Lord  as  in  humility;  it  was 
the  contrast  of  the  eternal  and  the  temporal  with  the  Father  and 
apart  from  the  Father,  divine  and  human  that  tilled  their 
thoughts.  The  attempt  to  make  the  incarnate  Christ  a  product 
of  Rabbinical  crudities  utterly  fails  (cf.  Orr.  1.  c.  p.  508).  If 
sucli  a  view  were  true,  we  must  hold  that  the  Church,  which 
Paul  makes  Christ's  body,  also  prei'xisted  in  heaven  before  it 
appeared  on  earth.     To  help  out  this  Jewish  origin  of   Jesus  as 


to  the  Nicene  Tlieology. 


59 


Pfleiderer  wing  say  that  Hellenism  got  into  tlie 
Mew  Testament  itself  and  led  Paul  and  John  to 
turn  Jesus  into  a  demi-god.  The  Ritschl  wing  say  the 
real  Jesus  was  a  revealer  who  had  the  relicrious  value 
of  God  to  faith,  l)ut  in  the  second  and  third  centuries 
became  changed  into  a  metaphysical  deity  through 
Greek  tho^.iogians  in  the  Church.  Sclioen  points  out 
that  in  the  first  edition  of  Ritschl's  liechtfertigunfj  he 
oj)posed  the  personal  preexistence  of  Christ,  calling  it 
a  mere  "help-line,"  but  in  later  editions  omitted  this 
opposition  (1.  c,  p.  83).  But  neither  view  is 
possible  until  an  objective  historical  Revelation  in 
Jesus  is  set  aside,  and  the  authority  given  the  Apostles 
by  Christ  and  claimed  and  exercised  by  them  is  decis- 
ively cast  off.^  This  last  is  of  especial  importance  in 
view  of  the  present  currents  of  critical  thought;  for  the 

the  "Heavenly  Man,"  the  preexistent  type  of  Jewish  theology, 
which  is  felt  to  be  inadequate,  Ilarnack  also  brings  in  Greek 
inliuence,  though  he  had  expressly  said  that  no  specifically  Hel- 
lenistic thoughts  can  be  traced  in  the  Jewish  doctrine  of  pre- 
existence {Doymengeschichte,  I,  Appendix).  Baldensi)erger  (p. 
89,  Note)  opposes  such  a  position,  especially  the  inclination  of 
Ilarnack  to  drag  Hellenism  into  early  Judaism  and  into  the  very 
teachings  of  Christ,  as  well  as  of  Paul  (I,  63,  Note,  and  83). 
The  vouuffer  Ritschl  also  maintains  that  his  father  did  not  think 
that  Paul  "mixed  Greek  philosophy  into  the  gospel"  {Th.  Lit. 
Z'j,  1895,  S.  54).  In  this  and  other  matters  Ritschl  was  pro- 
voked by  the  extreme  views  of  such  disciples  as  Ilarnack.  Cf. 
Frank.  Geschichte  d.  neuer.  Theologie,  Erlangen,  1894.  S.  327. 
1  Pfleiderer  frankly  admits  that  Paul  taiigiit  a  preGxistent, 
Divine  Christ,  who  became  incarnate  and  prcaclied  the  doctrine 
of  Justification  by  faith  in  Christ,  who  made  an  atonement  for 
sin;  but  declares  both  of  these  teachings  ])ol()nged  to  the  transi- 
tory and  not  the  enduring  elements  in  Paul's  "  Dogmatic  theol- 
ogy "     (1.  e.  221).     Such  arbitrary  treatment  of  St.  Paul,   not 


'J 


60 


C'-itical  and  Biblical  Prolegomena 


■  I 


whole  Nicene  theology  claims  to  rest  upon  Apostolic 
teachings,  partly  as  their  direct,  historical  continua- 
tion, and  paril;-  as  their  conscious,  dogmatic  reproduc- 
tion. We  cannot  discuss  this  subject  in  a  paragraph 
at  the  close  of  a  lecture,  but  may  offer  the  following 
suggestions : 

(1)  Je&^s  chose  the  twelve  Apostles,  specially  re- 
vealed Himself  to  them,  gave  them  peculiar  authority 
(Matt.  X.  30;  xvi.  19;  xviii.  18),  made  them  the 
twelve  Patriarchs  of  the  New  Israel,  and  promiS  jd  them 
the  Holy  Spirit  to  lead  them  into  all  truth  about  the 
Gospel  (John  xvi.  13).^  After  His  resurrection  He 
imparted  the  Holy  Ghost  and  taught  them  for  forty 
days  the  meaning  of  His  finished  work.     And  the  risen, 


I 

I 

I'* 


i     f 


only  utterly  rejects  his  Aposiolic  r.'ithority,  but  teai'S  to  pieces 
his  most  vital  doctriues  in  the  very  face  of  his  own  protest  and 
anathema  (I  Cor.  i.  17;  Gal.  i.  8).  And  that  is  "scientific  the- 
ology"! In  like  manner  Kaftan  holds  that  we  cannot  accept  the 
Apostolic  view  of  "inspiration,"  the  atonement  as  "  sacrifice," 
or  any  doctrine  as  revealed;  for  revelation  is  not  of  doctrine, 
even  if  Paul  thought  it  was;  "it  is  the  education  of  men  for 
eternal  life,  for  sharing  the  Spirit  and  life  of  God."  Cf.  Was 
ist  Schriftyemass?  in  Ztft.  f.  Theol.  ti.  Kirche,  1893,  H.  2. 

1  Matt,  xxviii.  9  f . ;  Luke  xxiv.  13 — "ought  not  Christ  to 
have  suffered  these  things — ?";John  xx.  13  f. ;  Acts  I,  3  f.  Cf. 
Justin,  Ap.  I.  67:  "Jesiis  appearing  on  the  day  of  the  sun  to 
His  Apostles  and  disciples  taught  them  these  things,  which  we 
have  transmitted  to  you."  Gregory  Npk,.  thought  the  risen 
Lord  taught  the  Twelve  especially  "  the  Godhead  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,"  Oral,  xxxvii.  Cf.  Luke  xxiv.  49;  John  xx.  22;  Acts 
i.  2.  In  the  main  they  were  right,  tor  Christ  plainly  sai<l  tliat 
His  own  teachings  were  not  the  whole  of  Christianity.  He 
told  the  disciples  that  He  had  many  things  to  say  unto  them, 
which  they  could  rot  then  bear,  but  which  the  Spirit  of  truth 


m 


to  the  Nicene  Theology. 


61 


glorified  Christ  continued  His  revelation  through  the 
Twelve  until  it  was  complete.* 

(2)  The  Apostles  recognized  themselves  as  the 
special  revealers  and  witnesses  of  Christ.  Their  word 
was  Chrisfs  word.  When  Judas  perished,  the  eleven 
at  once  chose  a  successor  to  be  a  witness  of  Christ's 
Avhole  life  and  work  (Acts  i.  21)  with  them.  What 
Jesus  said  was  the  holiest  thing  in  Christianity,  hut 
the  Epistles  of  Peter,  Jr '  ?  and  Paul  rarely  quote 
Christ's  words.  They  must  have  felt  that  their  words 
were  His  Avords.^ 

(3)  The  Church  recognized  the  Apostles  as  special 
ambassadors  of  Christ,  whose  word  was  to  be  un- 
questioned in  all  matters  of  life  and  doctrine.  The 
Apocalypse  regards  them  as  the  twelve  foundation 
stones  of  the  wall  about  the  New  Jerusalem  (xxii. 
21).  The  Church  was  built  upon  them  (Eph.  ii.  20). 
They  had  no  successors. 

(4  )  The  entrance  of  Paul  into  the  Apostolate  shows 
the  unique  position  occupied  by  these  founders  of  the 
Church.  They  were  ministers  of  the  Word  as  no 
others  (Acts  vi.  4).  They  had  the  signs  and  the  super- 
natural, spiritual  qualifications  of  immediate  repre- 
sentatives of  the  Lord.  Their  gospel  and  their 
knowledge  about  Christ  were  matters  of  direct  revela- 
tion from  Him  (I  Cor.  xi.  2).     Paul  put  his  Apostolic 

would  latei'  reveal  unto  them  (John  xvi.  12).  He  must  die  and 
complete  the  Wvork  of  atonement  before  He  or  any  other  could 
preach  an  atonement.  All  this  is  fatally  overlooked  by  those 
who  make  Christianity  identical  with  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount. 

1  Cf.  N«sgen,  1.  c.  II.  S.  4. 

2  Cf .  Moore,  The  Canon  of  the  Nexo  Testament,  in  the  Pres. 
and  lief .  Jievkic,   1896,  I,  p.  8. 


4 


i!i 


62 


Critical  and  Biblical  Prolegomena 


III 


authority  and  the  truth  of  his  gospel  in  one  claim: 
they  must  both  be  accepted  or  rejected  (Gal.  i.  8). 

(5)  They  claimed  to  be  delivering  to  the  Church 
the  very  gospel  which  Jesus  Himself  had  preached, 
and  which  unless  preserved  by  them  would  be  forever 
lost.  Peter  calls  it  "  the  gospel  of  God  "  (I  Pet.  iv.  17). 
Paul  was  ready  to  call  any  man  or  angel  accursed, 
who  preached  any  other  gospel  than  that  which 
Christ  taught  and  the  Twelve  repeated  (Gal.  i.  7). 
This  is  the  gospel  as  repeated  by  Peter  that  Mark 
claimed  to  write  down  (Mk.  i.  14).*  Paul  com- 
manded the  churches  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  to  follow  the  tradition  which  he  gave  them 
(II  Thess.  iii.  6).  The  Apocalypse  claimed  the 
authority  of   Scripture  for  itself  (xxii.  19). 

(6)  All  spiritual  gifts,  which  were  so  abundant  in 
the  Apostolic  Church,  and  especially  the  gift  of  rev^ela- 
tion  were  under  the  mediation,  control  and  guidance 
of  the  Apostles.  All  Christians  possessed  the  Holy 
Ghost,  but  only  certain  ones  had  the  ^a/a/tj/zarrnr  of  heal- 
ing or  teaching  or  ruling.  And  those  who  had  the 
gifts  of  teaching  or  prophecy  were  by  no  means  neces- 
sarily revealers  of  the  Word  (Acts  vi.  8;  viii.  5; 
xiii.  1-14;  I  Tim.  i.  18).  Yet  all  the  speakers  with 
tongues,  the  prophets,  those  who  had  any  gift,  must  be 
instructed  by  the  Apostles  how  to  exercise  their  gift 
(I  Cor.  xiv.  28,  29).  It  seems  very  likely  also  that 
all  such  gifts  were  imparted  by  the  laying  on  of  the 
Apostles'  hands  (Acts  viii.  17;  Rom.  i.  12).  If  every 
believer  had  miraculous  gifts  then  apart  from  the 
Apostles,  why  should  not  Christians  have  similar 
powers  now  ?     Neither  the  Old  Testament  Church  nor 

1  Cf.  Zahn,  1.  c.  S.  29  and  note,  S.  290. 


to  the  Nicene  Theology. 


68 


the  New  Testament  Churcli  as  such  was  an  organ  of 
revelation;  but  certain  holy  men  spake  as  they  were 
moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost. 

(7)  The  revelation  of  the  "Word  of  the  Risen 
Christ  through  the  Apostles  was  quite  a  different 
thing  from  the  ecstatic  gifts  of  tongues.  This  is  seen 
in  the  calm  speech  of  Peter  exj)ounding  the  Old 
Testament  and  teaching  at  Pentecost.  It  appears  in 
the  fact  that  Paul  wrote  Epistles  to  churches  which 
had  many  prophets  (as  Corinth).  It  appears  also  in 
the  fact  that  tlie  companions  of  the  Apostles,  Mark, 
Luke,  Jude,  who  received  the  gift  to  reveal  Christ, 
never  appeal  to  any  prophetic  authority,  but  all  show 
close  connection  with  the  Twelve  (Luke  i.  2,  3;  Heb. 
ii.  3;  Jude  v.  1).  Hence  Nosgen  says:  "Immediate 
relation  to  the  Apostles  was  a  prerequisite  for  the  call 
of  a  non -Apostolic,  spiritually  endowed  witness  of 
the  truth  to  become  an  organ  of  revelation."  * 

(8)  The  Apostolic  authority  is  put  by  Christ 
(Luke  xi.  49)  and  the  Twelve  (Acts  i.  2;  x.  28)  on  a 
level  with  that  of  the  Old  Testament;  they  stand  or 
fall  together.  AVe  have  either  a  Bible  of  Prophets 
and  Apostles,  or  no  Bible  at  all. 

(0)  To  reject  Apostolic  authority  is  to  make  our 
New  Testament  a  mere  accident  with  no  purpose  of 
God  in  it;  and  is  further  to  leave  primitive  Christian 
doctrine  such  an  emaciated  fragment  as  is  incapable 
of  development.  AVhat  Harnack  and  Kaftan  find  to 
develop  is  a  series  of  errors,  first  Jewish  then  Greek.*^ 

1  1.  c.  Bd.  II,  S.  31. 

2  Hence  Norton  (Stafcmenf,  p.  125),  who  antici])ate(l  the 
Ritxohl  position  of  dynamic  Unitarianisni,  calls  the  "  history  of 
the  Incarnation  one  of  the  most  striking  and  most  nulnncholy 


ir-iiti 


'  r 


i  f 


I 'I 

M 


ill 


64 


Critical  and  Biblical  Prolegomena 


(10)  To  reject  the  Apostles  is  to  blot  out  Easter 
and  Pentecost  at  a  stroke.  Risen  Christ  and  Holy 
Ghost  disappear  together ;  for  the  same  witness  of  the 
Spirit  testifies  for  Christ  in  the  Apostolic  writings  as 
speaks  in  the  words  of  Jesus  Himself.*  "He  that 
heareth  you  heareth  me,"  was  surely  as  true  after 
Pentecost  as  it  was  when  the  Twelve  w(^re  but  learners 
in  the  School  of  Christ.  The  Spirit  of  the  Lord  still 
says  of  faithful  Christians,  "  they  continued  steadfast 
in  the  Apostles'  doctrine  and  fellowship,  and  in  the 
breaking  of  bread,  and  in  prayers"  (Actsii.  42). 

monuments  of  human  folly  which  the  worhl  has  to  exhibit." 
He  refers  to  Le  Clerc  {Ars  Critica),  and  Petavius  the  Jesuit 
(d.  1652)  as  abundantly  teaching  the  same  view  of  the  History 
of  Christology. 

1  Cf.  Denney,  Studies  in  Theology,  London,  1894,  p.  223. 


4' 


I    I 


LECTURE  II 


fdjin^  i\t  Sounidlioi^B  of  !§«  115icen«  f  ^^ofo^p,  centering  in  t§c 

lDi&ii^«  €§«£!!,  anJ)  in  oppo^ifioi^  lo  j^a^an  Culture  rcprc- 

uxd^b  fij  (g>no0ficiBm,  liff  l§c  5ait§  of  t§<>  €§urc§ 

xoajs  ziiiUl  6p  t^e  ;2lnii'^no0tic  f  ^cofoiaiang 

upon  a  "ISciD  €c£5tam«nf  Basijs. 


:  "mil 


l^^ll 


111 


.   ■  31 


lil 


65 


"Das  grUsstc  Ilinderniss,  welches  zur  Zeit  cinem  gedcihlichen 
Stiulium  der  systeniatiscben  Thoologlo  sich  entgegonslellt,  ist 
die  Unterordnung  der  theologisohen  Erkenntniss  uuter  die  je- 
weileu  iibliche,  iiatiirlich-jdiilosophische. 

Frank.      Vademecum  filr  angehende  Theologen.     S.  202. 


i 


God  "hath  made  of  one  blood  all  nations  of  men  for  to  dwell 
on  all  the  face  of  the  earth."  "  For  in  Ilim  we  live  and  move 
and  have  our  being;  as  certain  also  of  your  own  jjoets  have  said, 
For  Ave  are  also  his  offspring."         Paul,  in  Acts  xvii.  20,  28. 


"  Unter  dera  Ileiligsten  ist  nichts,  als  die  Geschichte,  dieser 
grosse  Spiegel  des  Weltgeistes,  dieses  ewige  Gedicht  des  gott- 
lichen  Verstandes:  nichts,  das  weniger  die  Beriihrung  unreiner 
llllnde  ertriige."       Schelling.  Methode  des  akad.    Stadiums. 


"What  is  the  origin  of  the  idea  of  God?  To  this  question 
three  answers  have  been  given.  First,  that  it  is  innate.  Second, 
that  it  is  a  deduction  of  reason.  Third,  that  it  is  to  be  referred 
to  a  supernatural  revelation,  preserved  by  tradition." 


Hodge. 


Systematic  Theology y  I,  p.  191. 


<«  Bonus  vir  sine  Deo  nemo  est."    Seneca. 


66 


lllilS!i_ — 


LECTURE  II. 


lit 


Laying  the  foundations  op  the  nicenf  theology, 
oentekino  in  the  divine  christ,  and  in  oppo- 
sition to  pagan  culture  represented  uy 
gnosticism,  till  the  faith  of  the  church  was 
settled  by  the  anti-gnostic  theologians  up- 
on a  new  testament  basis. 

Jesus  Christ  appeared  when  the  ages  met.  He 
came,  St.  Paul  says,  in  the  fullness  of  time.  (Gal. 
iv.  4f.)  Judaism  had  seen  her  last  king  dethroned 
and  waited  as  never  before  for  the  Son  of  David. 
Greek  sages  hadbelield  speculation  sink  into  tradition, 
and  longed  in  ecstatic  visions  for  the  God-inspired  man 
of  Plato  to  reveal  the  truth.  Rome  had  followed  all 
paths  of  glory  till  they  culminated  in  the  Divine 
Caesar.  Jesus  was  born  under  the  first  Emperor. 
The  Kingdom  and  the  Empire  began  together.  The 
pagan  deities,  who  once  filled  the  sky  and  clouds  with 
life  and  made  the  world  joyful,  had  been  shaken  from 
their  places  by  Rome;  mythology  was  a  mass  of  con- 
fusion; and  an  empty  heaven  meant  an  empty  earth. 
With  no  sky -father  more,  humanity  felt  itself  orphaned 
indeed.  Never  before  could  a  Roman  Judge  sentence 
the  Jewish  Messiah  to  the  cross  in  the  city  of  Jerusalem. 
And  never  before  could  the  superscription,  "  Jesus  of 
Nazareth,  the  King  of  the  Jews  "  have  been  hung  in 
Hebrew,  Greek  and  Latin  above  the  dying  Christ.     It 

67 


68 


Foundations  of  the  Kicene  Theologij^ 


was  not  acciilental  that  the  great  Apostle  to  the  Gen- 
tiles, who  moved  Christianity  from  Jerusalem,  a 
national  centre,  to  Rome,  a  world  centre,  was  l)orn  in 
the  Dispersion,  spoke  Greek,  was  educated  a  Pharisee 
iu  the  Holy  City,  and  had  all  the  rights  of  a  Roman 
citizen.  There  is  a  true  Christian  philosophy  of 
history  involved  in  such  things,  which  makes  Christ 
King  of  the  kings  of  the  earth,  and  taxes  to  Ctesar 
as  much  part  of  holy  living  as  tithes  to  Jehovah. 
Baur  closed  his  great  work,  on  the  History  of  the 
Trinitif  and  Incarnation^  with  the  words:*  "As 
certain  as  the  idea  of  humanity  must  realize  itself; 
and  as  certain  as  it  is  to  be  put  essentially  in  the  union 
of  God  and  Man;  so  certain  can  it  above  all  else  T>e 
realized  only  by  entering  at  a  definite  point  in  a  defi- 
nite individual  into  the  consciousness  of  Humanity." 
We  may  not  agree  with  the  somewhat  predestinarian, 
l)antheistic  view  of  history  held  by  Baur;  but  we  must 
agree  with  him  that  Christ  is  a  real  Incarnation  only 
as  perfect  spirit  and  perfect  historical  manifestation 
meet  in  Him;  and  Church  history  cannot  be  truly 
understood  unless  we  recognize  the  presence  of  the 
Spir't  of  God  moving  through  all  its  phenomena.  It 
is  the  lack  of  such  recognition  by  the  school  of  Ritschl 
that  makes  the  whole  temper  and  outcome  of  its 
historical   investigation  unsatisfactory.     Wendf^  and 

1  Die  ChristUche  Lehre  von  der  DreieinigJceit  unci  Mensch- 
xcerdung  Gottes.     Tubingen,   1843.     Bd.  III.  S.  998. 

2  Ueber  A.  IIarnack''s  D.  G.  1888,  S.  22;  though  he  remarks 
parenthetically  of  the  growth  of  early  Christology:  "  We  may 
say  it  went  on  under  the  leading  of  Divine  Providence  "  (S.  10). 

Ilis  most  significant  statement  is,  that  the  question  is  not : 
""Wntther  according  to  Jesus' own  judgment  of  Himself  and 


Laid  in  Coi^Jlict  with  Ilelletusm. 


69 


■i:0i|i|||i 


Harnack  and  McGiffert'  assure  us  that  the  Church 
liistorian  has  absolutely  nothing  to  do  with  the  truth 
oi"  falsity  of  the  doctrines  whose  development  he 
traces:  ihat  is  matter  of  faith,  and  what  can  be  said 
about  it  belongs  to  the  theologian.  The  highest 
principle  recognizer*  is  n  teleological  moral  aim,  which 
inovcH  now  to  do  ])resent  duty;  but  the  causal  law 
whicii  ])lnds  phenomena  together  so  as  to  make  "  die 
W(dft/esc/ii elite  das  Welttjerirht^''''  is  ignored  almost  as 
much  as  was  done  l)y  Ilume.^  Harnack  tells  us  that 
the  first  Christians  perverted  the  gospel  by  putting  the 

the  religious  conco]>tions  of  Jesus  as  a  whole,  which  we  regard 
as  the  supronio  staiichinl  of  Revelation  for  all  Christian  doctrine, 
the  Logos-Christology  appears  true  (giillig)  and  necensari/; 
neither  are  we  to  ask,  whether  it  is  poaslble  to  construct  the 
Logos-Christology  in  such  a  form  theologically,  that  it  will  he 
just  lit  once  to  a  religious  and  historical  estimate  (Wiirdiguiig) 
of  Jesus  and  also  wrong  no  other  justified  interest,  which  must 
be  recognized  in  the  theological  system;  but  we  have  solely  to 
ask  the  question  of  history  of  doctrine  (dogmengeschichtliche 
Frage)  in  what  sense  and  interest  as  a  inatter  of  fact  did  the 
Logos-Christology  take  shape  from  the  second  century  on,  and 
in  how  far  in  this  actual  taking  of  shape  vas  the  essential  ele- 
ment of  the  Christian  religious  view  as  a  whole  injured  or  pre- 
served." 

1  Inaugural  Address  on  Primitive  and  Catholic  Christianity, 
New  York,  18 9. '3. 

2  Of  course  the  history  of  doctrine  cannot  discuss  the  cor- 
rectness of  all  dcctrines  described;  that  would  be  to  make  it 
systematic  theology  in  the  form  of  history.  But  it  can  recog- 
nize the  Spirit  of  God  in  that  history,  and  show  what  Christian 
truth  moved  steadily  on  in  conflict  with  error.  Neither  of 
these  is  given  its  place  by  the  school  of  Ritschl.  Harnack 
dedicates  his  history  of  dogma  to  his  brother,  a  professor  of 
mathematics.     His  highest   wish  for   it   is   that   it  may    be  a 


70 


Fov,ndcitio7i.s  of  the  yicene  Theology^ 


.i  .  ■!:!' 


Person  of  Jesus  in  place  of  His  words.  But  he  says 
it  was  necessary  to  do  so.  He  points  out  how  Pauline 
teachings  respecting  justification  by  faith  alone  -tried 
to  revive  in  the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries,  but  did  not 
(Ztft.f.  T/i.ti.  Xirche.lSdl,  H.  2);  he  says  they  were 
not  as  well  fitted  to  christianize  the  Goths  as  Catholi- 
cism.    Herrmann  shows  113  how  much  Nicene  theology 

worthy  successor  of  a  similar  work  by  his  grandfather.  He 
tells  us  that  the  spread  of  a  doctrine  everywhere  in  the  Church 
is  no  test  of  its  truth;  and  thinks  the  inrtuence  of  Theodosius 
was  greater  than  all  the  supposed  truth  of  the  Xicene  Chris- 
tology.  He  sees  in  the  prevalence  of  a  milder  Creed  than  that 
of  Nica^a  in  the  Nicaja-Constantinopolitau  Symbol  only  the 
irony  of  fate  and  the  satire  of  history  upon  the  orthodox  Church. 
Everywhere  the  elements  that  gave  rise  to  doctrinal  discussion 
—  bcafheu  life,  thought,  superstition  and  prejudices — are  made 
so  prominent  that  the  impression  is  left  that  the  history  of  the 
Church  was  ^)ut  a  chapter  of  cruel  and  fatal  accidents.  The 
only  spirit  which  he  recognizes  is  the  "Zeitgeist";  to  speak  of 
the  Spirit  of  God  guiding  the  Church  unto  any  truth  or  the 
ever-present  Christ  in  her  midst  woula  be  shocking  to  his  con- 
science as  historian.  In  the  ])reface  to  the  Knglifdi  translation 
of  the  third  edition  of  his  History  of  Dogma  (Boston:  Roberts, 
1895),  he  says;  "In  taking  up  a  theological  book  we  are  in 
the  habit  of  inquiringf  first  of  all  as  to  the  '  stanupoint'  of  the 
author.  In  a  historical  work  there  is  no  room  for  such  inquiry. 
The  question  here  is,  whether  the  author  is  in  sym))athy  with 
the  subject  about  which  he  writes,  whether  he  can  distinguish 
origin.al  elements  from  triOse  that  are  derived,  whether  he  has  a 
thorough  acquaintance  With  his  material,  whether  he  is  conscious 
of  the  limits  of  his  hititoricil  knowledge,  and  whether  he  is 
truthful."  Whether  these  requirements  exhaust  the  Categorical 
Imperative  for  the  historia.i  or  not,  most  critics  are,  I  think, 
agreed  that  they  are  insuTiicient  to  explain  such  a  history  as 
riarnack's;  for  in  it  the  anti-metaphysical,  anti-pietistic  "stand- 
point" everywhere  makes    theological  "presuppositions   shape 


Laid  in  Conflict  witlt  Hellenism. 


71 


Luther  retained;  hut,  he  adds,  it  would  have  heen 
impossible  to  bring  in  the  Reformation  in  any  other 
way.  The  thing  that  succeeds,  according  to  this  view 
of  history,  is  for  the  most  part  the  wrong  thing  yet 
the  necessary  thing.  Now  that  is  not  the  view  of 
Gamaliel,  who  snid:  "if  this  counsel  or  this  work  be 
of  men,  it  avIII  come  to  naught;  but  if  it  be  of  God, 
ye  can  not  overthrow  it"  (Acts  v.  38-80);  neither  is 
it  the  view  which  the  Church  has  held  frt..;.!  the  be- 
ginning; for,  with  all  her  mistakes,  we  cannot  Ijelieve 
that  her  failure  has  been  fundamental  and  permanent; 

and  color  the  liistorioal  presentation"  (cf.  I.  ch.  II).  Frommel, 
a  lil)ei'al  himself,  says  of  Ilarnack's  work,  that  it  is  -'analytical 
rather  than  synthetical,"  and  is  emaciated  by  the  intluence  of 
KitHchl,  which  makes  "defective  the  conception  of  primitive 
Christianity  from  which  he  sets  out."  Cf.  Ucvkc  Chretuiiiie. 
1894,  Jan.  }).  40f.  See  similar  criticism  in  the  Clnnxh  Qudrt. 
Review,  Oct.  1884,  p.  249,  where  the  writer  says  thatlFarnack  in 
his  })ower  to  judge  fact!  "seems  to  fall  helow  the  standard 
of  an  ordinary  sensible  Churchidan."  Renan  says  [Soitreiiirs 
(PEtifance  ct  de  Jewicsse,  1883,  p.  285),  that  "the  eye  mns*^  be 
completely  achromatic  if  it  is  to  find  truth  in  philosophy  or 
politics  or  morals."  But  too  [rreat  in) partiality  may  be  a 
dangerous  virtue.  This  "  acLAjuatic  eye"  in  the  head  of 
Ilarnack  or  Herrmann  sees  no  pre('xistent  Christ,  no  Virgin 
birth,  no  true  rcsurrectici),  no  real  miracles,  no  coming  again 
in  glory  of  Jesus  Christ.  Color  blindness  may  be  as  bad  for 
the  historian  as  any  other  blindness.  It  is  this  lack  of  vision 
for  spiritual  things  in  the  life  of  the  Church  which  we  here  de- 
plore. 

Since  writing  the  above  I  have  met  similar  criticism  of  the 
Ritschl  view  of  history  by  the  late  Dr.  Dorner.  He  says 
{Bricficechsel  zvnschen  Martens<.'ii  uud  Dorner.  Berlin,  1888, 
Bd.  II.  S.  210)  that  he  objects  to  Ritschl's  view  "  especially 
because  he  sees  in  history  really  no  progress,  but  beholds  history 
run    its   course  with   utter  disregard  of   any  ruling  principle. 


II' 


!  1 


72 


F'oundations  of  the  Xicene  Tlieoloiiij, 


nor  is  it  tlie  conviction  of  all  current  etliics,  which 
feels  that  "trnth  is  mighty  and  will  prevail."  Bnt 
such  a  pessimistic  outcome  is  inevitable  to  the  school 
of  Ritschl ;  for  if  all  Christianity  be  only  an  impression 
of  God  as  Father  revealed  in  Christ,  it  is  phiin  there 
is  for  us  no  God  in  philosophy,  no  God  in  natun;,  and 
no  God  in  history.  Pagan  religion,  Greek  wisdom, 
Roman  laws  are  utterly  ii'religious,  and  that  for  a 
theology,  whicli,  on  the  other  hand,  denounces  the 
doctrine  of  oi'iginal  sin!  Herrmann  feels  keenly  this 
position  with  reference  to  the  truth,  which  he  admits 
the  Cliurch  lias  assimilated  from  the  natural  virtues 
of  Greece  and  Rome;  and  by  a  salto  mortale  he  tries 
to  connect  it  with  Christ.  He  says,  "■  it  all  belongs  to 
the  historical  existence  of  Jesus"  in  greater  or  less 
(h^ffree.*     But  in  that  case  Hinduism  and  Confucianism 


>it 


Aud  he  does  so  either  intentionally  or  because  such  a  position 
is  necessary  to  his  theory."  Men  even  of  the  school  of 
Ititschl  cannot  so  treat  the  History  of  Israel.  Stade  {Ztft.  j. 
Til,  u.  Khrhc,  1892,  S.  412  f.)  shows  that  the  thought  of 
a  divine  guidance  of  Israel  towards  a  certain  goal  found 
ex))ression  in  the  Messianic  hope.  Old  Testament  prophecy 
everywhere  suggests  God  in  the  history  of  His  people. 
Can  we  think  God  is  not  to  be  ecpially  recognized  in  New 
Testament  predictions  and  in  the  History  of  the  Church':' 
Even  heathen  sages  could  not  write  history  without  referring  to 
Diviiit!  Providence — "the  destiny  that  shapes  our  ends." 
Heroilotus  tells  us  that  the  story  of  the  i'"rsian  wars  with 
(ireece  showed  a  divine  guidance  of  the  affairs  of  men,  a  Goii 
in  human  history.  Hence  Schnedermann  {^X.  Klrchl.  Ztft.  1890, 
11.  :J)  says  the  inquiry  of  Meinhold  (  Wider  den  Kleiiujlaubtn, 
1895,  S.  1.3):  "Who  indeed  would  ask  after  the  aim  of  Greek, 
or  Roman  or  G  man  history?"  is  very  wide  of  the  mark, 
unless  we  are  to  regard  all  philo8oj)liy  of  history  as  groundless. 
»  JJer  Verkehr  dcs  Christen  mit   Gott,  2d  Ed.  S.  31. 


Laid  hi  Conflict  with  Hell ph ism. 


73 


must  also  belong  in  greater  or  less  degree  to  "the 
historical  existence  of  Jesus/'  And  as  these  re- 
ligions rest  upon  natural  theology,  natural  theology- 
is  more  or  less  a  revelation  of  Christ;  and  here  we 
land  in  a  cosmical  ChristoloL-y  and  things  utterly  con- 
tradictory and  horril:)le  to  men  of  this  school.  Har- 
nack  declares  it  was  the  natural  theology  of  the  Greeks 
-with  its  Logos  theory  that  corrn[)ted  Christian  doc- 
trine: no \v  Herrmann  tells  him  that  this  corrupt  ele- 
ment was  in  greater  or  less  degree  from  Christ.  But 
Paul,  while  preaching  God  in  nature,  also  set  forth 
the  gos])el  as  something  utterly  unknown  to  men. 
The  revelaiion  in  Jesus,  as  taught  by  Ritschl,  he  de- 
clares the  wisdom  of  the  Greeks  did  not  know;  it  was 
fooMshness  to  them. 

~\ 'ithout  going  further  into  the  spiritual  philosophy 
of  Cuui'ch  history,  it  will  be  seen  from  these  remarks 
that  we  must  bear  in  mind  that  all  the  interpretation 
of  the  development  of  docti'ine  given  Iw  Kaftan,  Har- 
nack,  Loofs  and  others  of  this  party,  while  exceed- 
ingly suggestive,  is  everywhere  warped  by  peculiar 
theoretical  and  a  priori  principles.^ 

1  On  the  Hellenization  of  Cliristi;ui!ty,  see  Mosboira,  De 
turlxtta  per  recentiores  Platonicos  Kcclcsia  Commcntatlo,  The 
iuriuence  of  Greek  thought  was  already  licKl  by  Cu<l worth 
{LitdlectiKil  System,  C.  iv.  W),  Ilorsley  {Letters  to  Priesti'ij 
xiii.),  and  other  eighteenth  century  divines  in  I^igband,  to  have 
greatly  affected  early  Christian  teachings.  Potter,  in  his  edition 
of  Clement  ol"  Alexandria  (1715),  observes  "  tliat  Clement  often 
says  that  men,  through  jdety  and  virtue,  are  not  only  assinulated 
to  (ilod,  but,  as  it  \v(!re,  transformed  into  the  divine  nature,  and 
become  gods"  (quoted  in  Norton,  St<(t>:)nent  of  lieasoits,  1859, 
}).  114).  Norton  argued  in  the;  line  of  Priestley  [llistori/  of 
Early    Opinions  Concerniny  Jtsns    Christ)  and  other  English 


74 


Foundations  of  the  Nicene  Theology^ 


f' 


But  to  return  to  our  historical  starting  point.  As 
the  first  generation  of  Jevdsh  Christians  sent  forth 
Paul  to  lead  a  second  generation  of  Gentile  Christians 
to  lay  the  foundation  of  a  world-wide  Church,  and  to 
frame  a  doctrinal  statement  for  the  Roman  Empire, 
the  most  momentous  step  in  the  history  of  the  Church 
was  taken.  The  Divine  Christ  and  three  powerful 
races  of  reliijion  and  culture  were  involved  in  it.  The 
Hebrews  gave  their  knowledge  of  God  and  their  Old 
Testament   Scriptures.      The   Greeks  presented  their 

writers  of  the  "Hellenistic"  tendency,  that  the  Logos-Christ- 
ology  and  the  Trinity  are  a  product  of  })agan  corruption  of 
Christianity,  There  is,  therefore,  nothing  new  in  tho  theory  of 
Harnack  and  Hatch.  Students  of  Deism  and  Arianisra  in  Eng- 
land, and  of  Unitarianism  in  America,  will  find  in  them  all  the 
essentials  of  the  so-called  "secularization"  or  "  Ilellenization  " 
of  Christianity,  to  which  the  school  of  Ritschl  now  refers  as  if 
it  were  a  great  "  Entdeckung." 

Ilarnack  thinks  that  the  Church,  by  clinging  to  the  Old 
Testament  and  the  God  of  the  Old  Testament  as  the  true  God, 
drifted  slowly  and  not  so  far  into  Hellenism  as  did  the  Gnostics, 
who  cut  loose  from  the  Jewish  Scriptures.  This  drift  is  called 
"  secularization  "  of  Christianity.  All  students  are  ready  to 
admit  that  the  Church,  in  her  worship,  her  sacraments,  her  or. 
ganization,  and  not  a  little  of  her  teachings,  did  become  to  a 
large  degree  secularized;  but  it  is  still  an  open  question  whether 
every  indication  of  Gnostic  thought  in  the  Church  is  a  proof  of 
secularization.  Hilgenfeld  argues  strongly  to  the  contrary  {Ztft. 
1890,  H.  I.).  He  holds  Gnosticism,  all  the  way  from  Simon 
Magus  to  Marciou  and  Valentine,  ' '  was  rather  a  renunciation 
of  the  world  than  a  secularization."  It  was  anticosmic.  Only 
in  a  formal  way  can  Hellenizing  be  ascribed  even  to  Basilides 
and  Valentine. 

On  Ilarnack's  theoretical  presuppositions,  and  how  they  warp 
his  supposed  objective  treatment  of  historic  material,  see  Foster, 
/Studies  in  Christology,  in  JBihliotheca  Sacra,  April,  1892. 


Laid  in  Conflict  with  Hell  cm  ism. 


75 


splendid  culture  of  the  individual  man.  The  Romans 
offered  their  colossal  social  system,  claiming  universal, 
infinite  power.  The  body  of  the  Empire  was  Latin; 
the  intellect  of  tl:e  Ein[)ii'e  was  Greek;  the  Spirit  of 
the  Empire — it^  Divine  Revelation — was  in  the  hands 
of  the  Jew.  Then  came  the  Divine  Redeemer  with 
His  gospel  for  humanity,  and  'irouglit,  through  His 
Church,  that  Spirit,  mind  and  body  into  a  unity  never 
before  known.  The  Roman  system  has  left  its  mark 
unmistakably  upon  the  Catholic  Church.  Pope  and 
bishop  and  canon  law  and  diocese  are  imitations  of 
the  tliiuijs  of  C.'i'sar. 

Tlie  Greek  mind  has  also  given  a  stamp  to  the 
gold  of  the  gospel,  which  it  still  retains.  But  through 
all  the  Church  development  from  a  simple  brotherhood 
to  a  vast  liierarchy,  and  especially  in  all  the  elaboration 
of  the  simple  primitive  faith  into  theological  creeds, 
the  Divine  Christ  and  the  Holy  Scriptures  have  moved 
to  keep  godly  men  in  the  way  of  truth. 

The  period  covered  by  this  lecture  extends  over 
about  a  century,  or  from  the  A})ostolic  Age  to  the 
time  of  the  anti- Gnostic  theologians,  Irenaeus  in  Gaul, 
his  pupil  Hi]t)polytus  in  Rome,  TertuUian  in  North 
Africa,  and  Clement  in  Alexandria.  It  is  a  time  of 
transition  and  development,  in  which  the  primitive 
churches  ])ecame  organized  as  the  early  Catholic 
Church,  witli  simple  creed,  collection  of  New  Tes- 
tament writings,  and  bishops  claiming  to  teach  the 
doctrines  of  the  A})Ostles.  Baur  thought  the  conflicts 
of  a  strong  Jewish  Christian  party  with  the  Gentile, 
Pauline  party  ended  in  a  union  under  the  name  of 
John,  which  produced,  late  in  the  second  century,  the 
Catholic  Church.     Pfleiderer  thinks  the  preaching  of 


11 


..'■11 


WW 


SI   1 


:!i 


•111 


i  1 


till' 


I 


76 


Foundations  of  the  Nicene  Theology, 


the  gospel  upon  ground  thoroughly  hellf  nized  pro- 
duced the  one  Church.  Ritschl  takes  a  better  posi- 
tion, holding  tliat  the  differences  between  Paul  riiid 
the  Twelve  were  soon  healed,  that  Jewish  Christii  aity 
greatly  declined,  and  lost  all  power  after  A.  D.  135, 
so  that  the  Church  of  post-Gnostic  days  is  a  Gentile 
development,  uninfluenced  by  Jewish  Christianity, 
except  through  the  study  of  the  Old  Testament  mes- 
sianically  interpi  eted  after  the  hermeneutics  of  Israel. 
It  is  especially  important  to  notice  the  influence  of 
Hellenic  Judaism  in  the  Dispersion,  for  it  was  the 
bridge  by  which  Palestinian  Christianity  passed  over 
to  the  Gentiles,  and  Jewish  Hellenists,  especially  Philo 
and  his  school,  attempted  to  solve  the  problem  of 
the  union  of  Old  Testament  theology  with  Greek 
philosophy  before  Greek  Christian  Gnostics  tried  to 
make  the  New  Testament  theologcv  the  culmination  of 
Hellenistic  culture.  The  Jews  had  gone  out  into  the 
Roman  world  as  missionaries  before  the  time  of  Christ; 
their  Bible  was  put  into  Greek;  Moses  was  explained 
as  the  Plato  of  Israel ;  even  the  synagogue  system  took 
shape  and  color  from  Greek  municipal  life.*  This  ex- 
perience of  the  Jews  A\'as  of  two-fold  interest  to  the 
early  Church;  first  of  all,  it  showed  that  sooner  or 
later  Christian  teachers  would  be  compelled  to  set 
forth  the  gospel  in  its  relation  to  the  learning  and 
wisdom  of  the  age;  and  second,  by  the  conversion 
to  Christianity  of  not  a  few  Hellenistic  Jews,  whose 
Judaism  had  already  imbibed  much  (Jreek  thought, 
the  discussion  of  this  relation  was  br<ni<2;ht  much 
nearer. 

1  Cf.  Schiirer,  Die  (>'  nv in<h  <'t)'sfassun(/  derJuden  in  lio7n  in 
der  JCaisarseit.     Leipzig,  1879. 


t! 


I*!.. 


Laid  in  Cotifiict  with  Ilellenism. 


11 


A  glance  at  the  Cliristian  literature  of  this  period 
^\'ill  help  us  to  see  how  the  thought  of  the  Church 
was  moving.  Five  classes  of  writings  may  be  distin- 
guished, each  of  which  was  written  from  its  own  point 
of  view,  and  from  that  point  of  view  must  be  studied 
and  estimated. 

(1).  First  of  all,  we  have  the  works  of  the  Apos- 
tolic Fathers,  including  the  so-called  "Teaching  of 
the  Twelve  Apostles."  Overbeck  calls  this  group 
the  Christian  primitive  literature."^  Inform  it  be- 
longs to  the  New  Testament  writings.  It  was  written 
l)y  Christians  for  Christians.  It  comes  from  Rome, 
Antioch,  Smyrna  and  Egypt,  and  gives  a  pi'actical 
view  of  post -Apostolic  Christianity. 

(2).  The  next  class  of  writings  embraces  the 
Apologetic  literature.  Here  the  arguments  are  ad- 
dressed to  heathen,  philosophers,  governors  and  Em- 
perors. And  like  contents,  like  form.  These  works 
for  pagan  readers  appear  as  dialogues  or  essays,  and 
introduce  us  to  "  Ecclesiastical  literature."  They 
offer  us  a  minimum  of  Christian  doctrine  set  rorth 
from  the  point  of  view  of  tlie  cultured  heathen,  and  it 
would  be  a  great  mistake  to  argue  that  Aristides  and 
Justin  put  all  their  Christianity  into  their  Apologies. 

(  3  ).  The  third  cl  ass  of  writings,  which  we  have  f«  r 
the  most  p^j't  o^ly  in  -yagijients,  was  produced  by  the 
(jrnostics.-' 

(4)'.     Following  this  came  the  large  and  ela])orate 

1  Ueber  die  Anfihige  der  patrist.  Lltteratur,  in  Hist.  Ztft. 
xlviii.  S.  417f. 

'^  Collected  by  Hilojenfcld  m  his  Ktlzergeschic/ife  den  UrrJiris- 
fod/nons.  Leipzig,  1884.  The  only  Gnostic  work  jtrewerved  is 
the  J^istis-tSophia,  of  the  second  half  of  the  third  century. 


i       '! 


w^^k', 


!  I  ^ll 


ll.t 


%A 


i  ■ 

-7  ,-(.; 

i 

1 

m 

i 

1 

1 

<\ 

l! 


78 


Foiuidations  of  the  Xicene  Tlteoloijij^ 


group  of  writings  replying  to  the  Gnostic  heresies  first 
of  all,  but  also  refuting  Jewish,  Montanist,  Mouarchiau 
and  other  errors. 

(5).  The  fifth  class  brings  us  to  the  Alexandrian 
theologians,  especially  Clement  and  Origen.  These 
professors  in  the  first  Christian  Theological  Seminary 
were  finally  able  to  create  a  literature  with  much  less 
reference  to  Apologetic  or  polemic  purposes,  and,  upon 
the  basis  of  results  reached  throui:;h  conilicts  with 
heathen  and  heretics,  set  forth  Cliristian  doctrine  on 
its  own  merits,  in  its  proper  proportions  and  solely 
for  purposes  of  edification.  Origen  wrote  the  first 
Systematic  Theology,  his  l)e  Vr\i>c\})\h^  which  ]je- 
came  in  a  uni(j[ue  sense  the  text  book  of  the  Eastern 
Church.  Out  of  the  school  of  Origen,  helped  by 
critical  tendencies  from  tlie  school  of  Antioch,  arose 
Arianism,  in  conflict  with  which  the  Nicene  theology 
took  shape. 

This  brief  outline  indicates  clearly  that  the  storm 
center  of  Christian  activity  in  the  second  century  was 
at  the  point  where  the  faith  of  the  Church  and  the 
knowledo-e  of  the  world  met.  There  were  external 
persecutions,  which  martyrs  endured  joyfully  in  the 
dungeon  and  at  the  stake.  There  were  literary  at- 
tacks of  educated  heathen,  which  the  Apologists 
answered  in  the  language  of  the  schools.  These  were 
from  without  and  could  be  met  as  open  enemies.  But 
when  Gnosticism  appeared  largely  within  the  Church 
itself,  laying  all  its  stores  of  Greek  wisdom  at  the  foot 
of  the  cross,  and  inviting  the  brethren  at  once  to  meet 
pagan  attack  by  showing  that  Christianity  was  the 
true  development  of  paganism,  and  to  glorif}^  Christ 
by  claiming  all  wisdom  and  knowledge  for  Ilini  and 


A 


Laid  in  Conflict  with  Hellenism. 


79 


His  Church,  then  temptation  came  as  an  angel  of 
light,  and  holy  men  roused  themselves  in  all  lauds  to 
save  the  Ark  of  God.  Ilarnack  describes  Gnosticism 
as  "the  acute  secularization,  that  is,  Ilellenization  of 
Christianity."  It  was  the  offer  of  all  the  kingdoms 
of  this  world  if  the  Church  would  hut  bow  down  and 
worsliip  culture  and  philosophy  as  the  tSupreme  God. 

Before  entering,  however,  upon  this  bitter  struggle 
in  which  the  foundations  of  our  theology  were  laid, 
we  must  go  back  a  little  and  put  ourselves  in  the 
gently-flowing  current  of  post-Apostolic  thought, 
which  was  so  soon  to  be  cut  into  diverging  streams 
by  the  high-places  of  Greek  and  Roman  wisdom. 
And  here  we  meet  with  a  difficulty  at  the  very  out- 
set. We  have  seen  what  the  New  Testament  teaches 
about  Christ  and  His  work.  We  shall  soon  see  VN'hat 
the  Apostolic  Fathers  present  as  the  gosj)^  to  the 
churches.  There  is  not  a  little  difference  between 
them.  How  is  this  to  be  accounted  for  ?  Of  course 
there  is  the  consideration  that  the  New  Testament  is 
the  Word  of  God,  and  that  these  later  writings  are  the 
utterances  of  unins})ired  men.  But  the  (piestion  still 
returns:  How  could  the  Gentile  churches,  largely 
founded  by  Paul,  so  soon  lose  their  hold  upon  his 
teachino;s?  How  could  the  slow  moviiio;  stream  of 
post- Apostolic  exhortation  bean  outflow  from  the  high, 
strong  fountain-head  of  New  Testament  theology? 

The  answer  to  these  (piestions  must  be  that  the 
History  of  Christian  doctrine  does  not  l)egin  Avhcn'e 
the  development  of  New  Testament,  especially  Paul- 


ine, theology    ends. 


The   following 


considerations 


1  Cf.  Ilarnack,  Theol.  Literal.  Zg.  1800.  No.   2G. 


n 


h^ 


is 


so 


Foundations  of  the  Xicene  I'lieoloijij, 


M 


1  1 


!fi.N 


ij  i 


I 


will  make  this  evident.  Many  of  the  first  clnirchos 
were  converted  by  men  from  Pentecost,  by  Peter, 
Barnabas,  Philip,  Nicholas  of  Antioch  and  others, 
who  preached  a  more  elementary  theology  than 
appears  in  Paul's  Ei)istles.'  What  Paul  himself 
preached  was  a  simple  gospel  about  one  true  God  and 
Jesus  who  redeeuK'd  men  and  gained  for  them  eternal 
life  by  His  death  and  resurrection.  After  the  death 
of  Paul,  John  lal)ored  in  the  East,  and  his  gospel  of 
love,  light,  life  in  Jesus  Christ,  supplanted  largely 
the  more  systematic  teachings  of  Paul.  There  is 
much  truth  also  in  the  observation  of  RitschP  that 
converts  from  heathenism,  owins;  to  their  iijnorancc  of 
the  Old  Testament,  which  Paul's  theology  so  largely 
presupposes,  could  not  fully  grasp  his  fundamental 
doctrines  of  law,  guilt  and  sacrific(!  as  applied  to  the 
work  of  Christ.  Hence  the  first  Gentile  churches 
must  lay  anew  the  fundamental  things  of  monotheism 
and  history  of  Revelation  in  the  Old  Testament, 
until,  by  learning  the  Bible  meaning  of  justice,  judg- 
ment, sin  and  redemption,  they  could  come  to  the 
New  Testament  doctrines  of  the  Kingdom  of  God 
and  entrance  into  it  through  faith  in  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ.  This  study  of  the  Law  and  the  Prophets 
was  closely  connected,  further,  with  the  growing 
conviction  that  the  Church  had  taken  the  place  of 
Israel  as  the  people  of  God  (Barnabas  iv.  14;  Justin, 
Dial.  xvi.  18).     Two  important  results  followed  this 


1  Harnack  (I,  161,  Eng.  Tr.)  thinks  Peter  was  in  Antioch, 
Corinth  and  Rome,  and  John  certainly  labored  both  in  Palestine 
and  Asia  Minor. 

^E))UteJiunff  der  Alt  - Katholischen  Klrche,  1857,  S.  282  f. 


jn4_. 


Laid  in  Conflict  ivith  Hellenism. 


81 


conviction:  on  the  one  hand  the  Old  Tostamcnt  cnme 
to  be  regarded  more  than  ever  as  a  Christian  I  took, 
and  wan  exi)hiined  accordingly;  and,  on  t!ie  other, 
Jewish  Christians  were  viewed  with  increasing  suspi- 
cion, especially  as  they  began  to  lose  their  faith  in 
the  Divine  Christ.  The  New  Testament  [)lainly  tells 
lis  that  the  Apostolic  churches  never  embodied  in 
their  faith  and  life  the  deep  comprehension  of  Chris- 
tianity set  forth  by  their  founders.  Lightfoot  sa}s 
there  were  greater  "theological  differences  and  re- 
ligious animosities"  in  Apostolic  days  than  now.* 
Hence  Kolde  argues  that  it  is  hardly  just  to  speak  of 
a  "fall"  in  faith  and  knowledge  among  the  post- 
Apostolic  churches,  for  "  this  Apostolic  elevation  has 
never  yet  been  proven."^ 

It  seems  plain,  then,  that  our  outline  of  Christian 
doctrine  can  not  begin  with  New  Testament  teachings 
in  their  fullness;  but  must  set  out  rather  from  that 
more  elementary  Christianity  which  was  appre- 
hended by  the  first  Gentile  believers,  and  which 
passed  with  some  loss  into  the  post- Apostolic  churches 
And  yet  it  would  be  a  great  mistake  to  regard  this 
transmitted  gospel  as  other  than  a  very  substantial 
body  of  Christian  belief.  The  numerous  discourses  of 
Peter,  John,  Paul,  Barnabas,  Silas,  Ajwllos,  Timothy, 
and  their  many  helpers,  must  have  filled  memories  of 
believers  with  the  truths  of  Christ.  Men  who  had 
seen  the  Apostles,  like  Clement  in  Rome,  Ignatius  in 
Antioch,   Polycarp    in    Smyrna,    and  many    others, 


1  Comment,  on  Gcdatians,  p.  374. 

2  Ueber    Grenzen   des  hist.    JErkennens. 
Leipzig,  1891.  S.  G. 


A  Lecture.  2(1  Ed. 


n 


1 


IMAGE  EVALUATION 
TEST  TARGET  (MT-3) 


1.0 


I.I 


1^ 


'"  IS 

li£  iliio 


1.8 


1.25      1.4      1.6 

^ 6"     

^ 

■ 


Photographic 

Sciences 
Corpordtion 


23  WEST  MAIN  STREET 

WEBSTER,  NY.  14580 

(716)  873-4503 


m 


v 


\\ 


<^ 


r^>^ 


1. 


%^ 


A 


82 


Foundations  of  the  Nic3ne  Theology^ 


lived  on  into  the  second  century.  The  constant 
meetings  of  believers  would  instill  those  outlines  of 
Christian  doctrine,  which  are  already  mentioned  in 
the  New  Testament,  as  "  first  principles  of  the  oracles 
of  God"  (Heb.  v.  12)  and  "principles  of  the  doc- 
trine of  Christ"  (Heb.  vi.  1),  into  the  hearts  of 
Christians.  Godly  women  like  Priscilla  could  teach 
men  like  Apollos  Christianity  as  "  the  way,"  as  a 
definite  path  of  truth  leading  to  everlasting  life.  The 
early  appearance  of  works  called  "Teaching  of  the 
Twelve  Apostles,"  or  "Preaching  of  Peter,"  and 
others,  show  how  much  brief  oral  teachings  from 
memory  were  used.  Tertullian  delighted  to  speak  of 
"  the  deposit"  of  doctrine,  which  Paul  gave  to  men 
like  Timothy  for  the  edification  of  the  churches.* 
We  must  also  remember  that  much  of  the  belief  of 
tlie  early  Christians  does  not  appear  in  post -Apostolic 
literature,  but  vas  oral,  personal,  expressed  in  de- 
votion, and  comes  to  our  knowledge  only  later  when 
it  took  form  in  Christian  worship,  or  put  itself  on 
record  against  heathenism  or  heresy. 

What,  then,  is  the  theology  of  these  Apostolic 
Fathers  with  whom  we  must  begin?  It  is,  as  we 
might  expect,  a  theology  of  fundamentals  in  religion. 
The  transition  from  received  to  reproduced  Christian- 
ity meant  inevitably  a  return  to  first  principles.'* 
Unaided  human  development  of  doctrine  and  knowl- 
edge, appropriating  revealed  teachings,  must  begin  at 
fundamentals.  The  Apostolic  Fathers,  like  the 
Apostles  themselves,  must  learn   through   parables, 

*  De  praescr.  hneret.  xxv. 

a  Cf.  NitzHoh,  iJof/mengeachkhte,  Berlin,  1870,  S.  33. 


Laid  in  Conflict  with  Hellenism. 


83 


and  through  the  Old  Testament,  the  mystery  of  one 
God,  who  saves  men  through  His  Son.  Bearing  this 
in  mind,  the  teachings  of  those  early  writers  will  ap- 
pear less  unworthy. 

They  show  ( 1 )  that  this  common  Christianity  be- 
lieved in  one  God,  the  Creator  of  the  Universe,  the 
Father,  Ruler  of  the  world  and  of  the  Church,  who 
chose  Christians  to  be  His  people,  who  takes  up  His 
abode  in  their  hearts  and  who  guides  their  lives.^ 

(2)  Here  is  also  faith  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 
Clement  calls  Him  Son  of  God  above  all  angels 
(xxxvi.),  and  who  came  into  this  world  (xvi.  2).  Bar- 
nabas knows  He  was  preexistent,  active  at  creation 
(v.  5),  became  incarnate  (xii.  10),  and  will  return 
in  divine  power  as  Judge  (xv.  6).  Polycarp  teaches 
plainly  the  Divinity  of  Christ  (i.  2,  viii.  1).  And 
Ignatius  loves  to  repeat  "  Christ  6  Qedi  t/fidSy,  Christ 
QeoiMov''''  (^}>7i. inscr.;  xviii.  2),  "the  Lord,"  and  "the 
only  Son  of  the  Father." 

(3).  The  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  clearly  held. 
Clement  speaks  of  "  God  and  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
and  the  Holy  Ghost "  as  a  connected  formula  (1  viii. 
2,  xlvi.  6),  evidently  echoing  the  form  of  baptism. 

(4).  The  work  of  Christ  includes  all  the  ele- 
ments later  embodied  in  the  Nicene  Creed.  He  was 
sent  by  God  to  redeem  us  and  make  us  His  portion 
(Clem.  R.,  Ixiv.).  He  is  our  High  Priest,  our  Media- 
tor, through  whom  we  see  God  and  taste  eternal  wis- 
dom (xxxvi.  1).  He  shed  His  blood,  gave  His  life 
for  us.  Barnabas  calls  this  a  sacrifice  on  the  cross 
(v.  1),  by  which  we  gain  everlasting  life,  forgiveness 

1  Cf.  Seeberg,  Lehrbuch  der  D.  G.,  Leipzig,  1895,  S.  41. 


':L 


in 


84 


Foundations  of  the  Nicene  Theology ^ 


of  sins,  and  enter  the  covenant  lost  by  Israel  (xiv.  4). 
Ignatius  lays  stress  upon  His  being  born  of  a  Virgin 
{Eph.  xix.  Smyr.  i.),  baptized  by  John,  condemned 
by  Pilate,  nailed  to  the  cross,  raised  from  the  dead, 
to  bring  Jews  and  Gentiles,  "  into  the  one  body  of 
His  Church"  (Smyr.  i).  To  despise  the  blood  of 
Christ  was  to  fall  under  condemnation  (Smyr.  vi.). 

(5).  Eschatology  is  prominent  as  in  the  Gospels. 
The  end  is  near.  The  Kingdom  of  God  is  still 
future,  and  longed  for.  Heaven  and  hell  appear  as 
awful  realities. 

(6).  The  weak  side  of  this  theology  is  its  view  of 
the  application  of  Christ's  work.  What  was  involved 
in  the  redemption  purchased  by  Him,  andhow  we  be- 
come partakers  of  it  were  imperfectly  understood, 
partly,  as  noticed,  because  tlie  Old  Testament's  pre- 
suppositions were  not  comprehended.  As  we  shall 
point  out  in  another  lecture,  a  certain  moralism*  had 
already  grown  about  the  saving  doctrines  of  Chris- 
tianity and  prepared  the  way  for  the  much  later 
monstrosities  of  Catholicism.  But  even  these  imper- 
fect views  of  doctrine  are  very  valuable  to  us,  for  they 
show  by  their  partial  reproduction  of  original  Chris- 
tianity, and  by  their  mechanical  use  of  words  of 
Christ  and  the  Apostles,  that  the  fullness  of  New 
Testament  teachings  had  already  gone  before;  they 
also  show  how  impossible  it  would  have  been  for 
our  Gospels  and  Apostolic  Epistles  to  have  been 
produced  in  the  second  century. 

The  most  commanding  figure  among  these  Apostolic 
Fathers  is  Ignatius,  Bishop  of   Antioch.      He  was 

1  But  see  Kriiger,    Waa/ieisstD.  Gf  Leipzig,  1896,  S.  37f. 


Laid  in  Conflict  with  Hellenism. 


86 


second  bishop  after  the  Apostles  in  this  capital  of  the 
first  Gentile  Christians.  He  was  widely  known 
throughout  the  churches.  He  shows  us  the  most  de- 
lightful picture  of  that  religious  activity  and  power 
which  enabled  the  Christian  Brotherhood  to  face  all 
the  wisdom  of  Greece  and  all  the  power  of  Rome. 
The  burden  of  his  exhortation  was  devotion  to  Christ. 
A  favorite  saying  of  his  was:  "Christ  my  love  is 
crucified"  (Horn.  vii.  2).  When  he  looked  abroad 
over  the  churches,  he  saw  them  threatened  from 
within  by  the  same  form  of  error  already  warred 
against  in  the  New  Testament.  It  was  on  one  side 
Jewish,  on  the  other  Gentile.  It  was  Judeo- Gnostic, 
though  as  to  the  relation  of  these  elements  we  can  not 
speak  with  certainty.  The  prominent  feature  of  this 
heresy  was  docetism  (cf.  Trail,  ix).  It  made  Christ's 
person  and  work  an  appearance  and  not  historic 
reality.  His  revelation  was  only  subjective  or  alle- 
gorical, and  not  objective  and  actual.  Christ  was 
made  only  an  idea  having  religious  value;  personally 
He  was  not  Redeemer  and  Lord.  Barnabas  writes 
from  Alexandria  referring  more  to  the  Jewish  form  of 
current  error.  Polycarp,  the  friend  of  Ignatius,  and 
for  years  a  disciple  of  the  Apostles,*  writes  from 
Smyrna,  condemning  the  docetic  type  of  heresy  (Ep. 
c.  vii.). 

In  opposition  to  all  such  incipient  Gnosticism, 
Ignatius  pointed  to  the  two  foci  of  Christian  life 
and  doctrine:  the  first  is  the  real  indwelling  of  God 
and  the  Divine  Christ  in  believers;  the  second  is  the 


m. 


WA 


m 


1  Cf.  Zahu,     Forach.   z.  Gesch.  d.  iV.  Test.  Kanoiia.    Leip- 
zig, 1891,  IV.  S.  275. 


86 


Foundations  of  the  Nkene  Theology^ 


idea  of  the  Church  as  the  body  of  Christ,  the  guardian 
of  order  and  purity  among  the  members.  The  uni- 
versal Christ  and  the  universal  Church  are  the  remedy 
for  the  narrowness  of  Judaism  and  tlie  unreal  breadth 
of  Hellenism.^  Christianity  is  presented  as  the  per- 
fect religion,  compared  with  which  all  others 
show  defects.  The  Jew  was  wroug  in  making 
Jesus  only  Son  of  David  and  the?  glory  of  Israel. 
The  Greek  was  wrong  in  seeing  in  Him  only  an 
ideal  of  wisdom  and  knowledge.  In  opposition  to 
Jewish  legalism  the  Church  claimed  liberty.  In 
opposition  to  Gnostic  anti-nomianism  the  Church 
magnified  law.  Here  Ignatius,  according  to  his  light, 
struck  into  the  golden  mid^vay  between  the  extremes 
of  Jew  and  Gentile.  His  theology  was  Christo-cen- 
tric,  and  the  test  of  truth  was  its  agreement  with 
Christ.  All  his  words  about  bishops  and  presbyters 
and  Church  authority  are  subordinate  to  purity  of  life 
and  devotion  to  the  Lord  as  the  supreme  aim.  Such 
a  theological  position  was  not  taken  for  the  promotion 
of  rigid  ecclesiasticism  or  gloomy  pietism.  It  sought, 
however,  to  be  true  to  both  the  Word  of  God  in  the 
Scriptures  and  the  revelation  of  God  in  nature  and 
human  history.  Those  Apostolic  Fathers  would  have 
condemned  the  theory  of  Schleiermacher,  putting 
Christianity  essentially  in  a  feeling  of  dependence. 
They  would  have  rejected  the  intellectualism  of  Hegel, 
or  Pfleiderer's  account  of  the  gospel.  They  would 
also  have  seen  a  defect  in  the  Christianity  of  Ritschl, 
centering  it  in   man's  will,  and  separating   God  in 

*  Hence,  as  is  well  known,  he  first  spoke  of  the  *'  Catholic 
Church."     Smyr.  viii. 


Laid  in  Conflict  ivith  Hellenism. 


87 


Christ  utterly  from  God  in  the  universe  and  man. 
At  this  very  point  Harnack,  his  pupil  Von  der  Goltz, 
and  others,  criticise  Ignatius  and  his  successors.  Be- 
cause they  speak,  as  Paul  did,  of  flesh  and  spirit,  the 
earthly  man  and  the  heavenly  man,  especially  because 
Ignatius  says  "  nothing  phenomenal  is  good  "  (Horn. 
iii.  3),  we  are  assured  that  they  had  imbibed  already 
ideas  which  "  found  in  the  Gnostics  only  their  conse- 
quent theoretical  expression."*  In  his  conflict  with 
Docetism,  Ignatius  began  to  develop  his  "simple 
thoughts  of  faith  in  general  into  a  theology." "  And 
this  theology,  V.  d.  Goltz  calls  a  combination  of  "Hel- 
lenism and  Johannine  mysticism"  (S.  151).  All  of 
which  simply  means  that  this  school  of  critics  labels 
everything  lying  outside  some  elementary  teachings  in 
the  Lofjia  assigned  to  Jesus,  Hellenism,  and,  as  such 
thought  meets  us  on  the  very  threshold  of  the  post- 
Apostolic  Church,  we  are  assured  that  the  whole  his- 
tory of  Christian  doctrine  has  been  a  growing  cor- 
ruption. Such  an  assumption  throws  into  false  per- 
spective the  whole  body  of  Christian  teachings  in 
their  relation  to  contemporary  thought  as  will  appear 
in  a  brief  survey  of  Gnosticism. 

The  Gnostics  were  the  men  of  knowledge  in  relig- 
ion. Some  called  themselves  so ;  others  were  so  called 
by  their  opponents.  They  were  known  as  a  party 
among  the  heathen.  There  were  Sa.maritan  Gnostics 
as  early  as  Simon  Magus,  from  whom  Justin  traces 
the  error.  The  school  of  Philo,  who  laid  great  stiess 
upon  three  doctrines — (1)  the  Absolute,  Unknown 


S-l 


1  V.  d.  Goltz.     Igmitiua  von  Antioch.,  Leipzig,  1895. 
a  ib.  S.  163;   S.  158. 


88 


Foundations  of  the  Kicene  llieology^ 


\ 


God,  (2)  Hi8  revelation  by  middle  beings,  especially 
by  the  Logos,  and  (3)  the  knowledge  of  God  reached 
through  asceticism  and  ecstasy — promoted  Gnosticism 
among  the  Jews.  And  as  early  as  New  Testament 
times  we  hear  Christians  warned  of  this  "science 
falsely  so  called,"  which  led,  on  the  one  side,  to  spurious 
liberality  of  thought,  and,  on  the  other,  to  immoral  lib- 
erality of  behavior.*  For  about  a  hundred  years  this 
movement  distressed,  disturbed  and  divided  the 
Church.'^  Its  strongholds  were  in  Asia  Minor,  in 
Alexandria  and  Rome.  About  the  year  150,  Gnosti- 
cism reached  full  development,  according  to  Justin,  in 
Marcion,  according  to  Irenaeus,  in  Valentine.  With 
these  men  it  broke  away  from  the  Church,  or  rnther 
was  cast  out  by  the  Church  as  inconsistent  with  the 
gospel.  Valentine,  who  was  ^philosophical,  formed  a 
sort  of  Unitarian,  Ethical  Culture  society;  while 
Marcion,  who  sought  to  be  a  religious  reformer  by 
going  back  to  Paul,  organized  rival  churches.  The 
clubs  of  Valentine  soon  disappeared ;  but  the  churches 
of  Marcion  lasted  till  the  sixth  century  in  the  remote 
East. 

Great  variety  of  views  appears  in  these  Gnostic 
teachings ;  for  they  arose  in  a  syncretistic  period  and 
reflect  the  diverse  philosophical  and  religious  thought 
of  blended  mythologies  and  schools.  Harnack  thinks 
Simon  Magus  and  Cerinthus  preached  Gnosticism  as  a 
"  Universal  Religion"  (1. 179) ;  butHilgenfeld  and  Lip- 

1  Gal.  iii.  3;  I  Cor.  v.  1  f. ;  I  Tim.  iii.  9;  vi.  3;  Jude  v.  4; 
Rev.  ii.  14,  20.  Cf.  Lutterbeck,  N.  Test.  Lehrbeyriffe.  Mainz. 
1852.  II,  S.  87  ff. 

2  We  hear  warnings  against  it  in  Syria  as  late  as  the  fourth 
century.     Cf.  Aphraates,  7t'.T^  w.  Unters.  Ill,  1888. 


Laid  in  Conflict  with  Hellenism. 


sius*  justly  question  this  view.  A  system  offered  only 
to  a  few,  in  secret  mysteries,  and  which  had  to  reject 
Paul's  universal  gospel,  can  not  have  first  taught  the 
Church  that  Christianity  is  the  one  Absolute  Religion. 
The  basis  of  Gnosticism  was  religious.  It  started  from 
Semitic  nature  worship,  which  was  closely  allied  to  the 
Mysteries.  This  esoteric  knowledge  of  nature,  it  was 
claimed,  was  the  truth  of  which  current  paganism  was 
but  a  coarse  allegory.  When  it  reached  the  West, 
this  Oriental  thought  became  oveilaid  with  Greek 
ideas,  especially  those  of  Plato,  as  can  be  seen  espe- 
cially in  the  systeir*  of  Valentine  (cf.  Irenaeus,  II,  14). 
A  third  side  to  this  system  was  practical,  sacramental, 
ascetic,  the  application  of  philosophy  and  religion  to 
life.  So  the  Gnostics  might  appear  as  prophets 
preaching,  as  philosophers  in  a  school,  as  ])riests  with 
magic  rites,  or  as  heathen  monks  seeking  Nirvana  by 
penances  and  prayers.  Philosophy,  especially  Greek 
philosophy,  has  always  run  in  one  or  other  of  two 
channels;  either  in  that  of  Monism  or  that  of  Dualism, 
according  as  the  unity  or  diversity  of  God  and  the 
universe  was  emphasized.  This  difference  of  view 
appears  in  Gnosticism.  We  do  not  know  whether  to 
follow  liippolytus  and  regard  the  early  Basilides  as  a 
pantheistic  Monist,  like  Hegel,  or  Irenaeus,  and  con 
sider  him  a  Dualist.  In  the  one  case,  we  would  have 
emanation  from  God  toward  matter;  in  the  other,  we 
would  have  evolution  from  the  material  towards  the 
spiritual.'^  It  matters  little,  however,  which  way  the 
thoughts  run;  the  end  and  aim  of  Gnosticism  was  by 

1  Die  Apok.    Apostelgeschich.      Braunschweig,     188Y,    II. 
S.  28  f. 

a  Cf.  Watkins,  The  Bampton  Lectures,  1890,  p.  366. 


!     ^f. 


I    ' 


90 


Foundations  of  the  Nicene  Tlieohxjy^ 


I 


means  of  pagan  wisdom,  supplemented  by  Christian- 
ity, to  solve  the  riddle  of  the  universe.  Tertullian 
says  it  asked:  "  Whence  came  evil,  and  why?  whence 
came  man,  and  how  ?  and  especially  the  question  put 
by  Valentine,  whence  came  God?"  {de  praes.  vii). 
A  wonderful  cosmogony  was  elaborated  to  explain 
man  as  a  creature  of  soul  and  body,  for  Gnosticism  set 
out  from  man.  Joined  to  this  cosmogony  was  an 
equally  wonderful  "History  of  Redemption"  (cf. 
Seeberg,  S.  56).  The  cosmogony  was  chiefly  pagan; 
the  theory  of  redemption  was  a  fantastic  putting  to- 
gether of  Christian  material ;  and  the  system  formed 
out  of  both  was  pronounced  true  Christianity.'  Faith 
meant  the  belief  that  the  knowledge  of  God  and  the 
universe  thus  reached  was  true.  This  belief,  or  relig- 
ious feeling,  impelling  to  the  new  view  of  the  world, 
was  gained  through  a  great  variety  of  washings, 
charms,  and  other  ceremonies  and  mysteries  in  the 
Gnostic  meetings  (Irenaeus  I,  3, 1).  Doubting  Chris- 
tians were  persuaded  by  appeals  to  secret  Apostolic 
traditions,  by  allegorical  exposition  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments,  and  by  Gnostic  writings  claiming  Divine 
authority  {ih.  I,  18,  If.;  I,  20). 

The  principal  doctrines  of  this  strange  collection  of 
ideas  Wc;i*e: 

(1)  Two  gods  instead  of  one.  The  eternal  un- 
known Deity ,^  and  the  lower,  derived  being  who  made 
the  world  were  quite  distinct.  To  the  question,  why 
is  this  world  so  imperfect,  so  evil  ?   the  Gnostic  replied : 

1  Cf.  Irenaeus,  I,  21;  Pistis- Sophia,  S.  1  f. 

»  Sohm  well  remarks  (S.  23)  that  by  Gnosticism  **the  living 
God  of  Christianity  was  transferred  back  into  the  Unknown 
God  of  the  philosophers  and  their  mysteries." 


Laid  in  Conflict  with  Hellenism. 


91 


it  was  made  by  a  small  god,  who  could  not  do  any 
better. 

(2)  The  world  of  matter  is  eternal,  and  essentially 
opposed  to  goodness  and  God. 

(3  )  God  and  the  universe  come  into  contact  through 
numerous  middle  beings,  begotten  by  the  All-Father, 
wlio  thus  reveals  Himself  in  nature  and  man,  though 
very  indirectly. 

(4)  Among  these  middle  beings  two  are  espe- 
cially noticeable,  viz.,  the  Demiurge,  who  built  this 
worst  possible  world,  and  makes  our  life  pessimistic 
on  principle,  and  the  Aeon  Jesus  or  Christ,  who  ap- 
peared as  a  man  to  correct  the  work  of  the  Demiurge. 
As  matter  is  in  itself  evil,  Jesus  could  not  have  a  body; 
hence  the  docetic  Christology  peculiar  to  all  Gnostics. 

(5)  The  Demiurge  was  the  God  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment and  the  Jews,  as  well  as  maker  of  this  world ; 
thus  the  Gnostics  from  their  division  of  men  into  three 
classes,  hylic  or  pagan,  psychic  or  Jews,  and  spiritual 
or  true  Christians,  emphasized  three  sources  of  being: 
Matter,  the  Demiurge,  and  the  Supreme  God  (^ib. 
1,5,1). 

(6)  The  doctrine  of  redemption  was  peculiar  to 
Christianity;  and  this  Gnosticism  got  from  the  gospel. 
We  may  say  that  the  three  great  felt  needs  of  educated 
pagans  in  the  second  century,  were:  first,  a  knowledge 
of  the  Supreme,  Unknown  God;  second,  a  Divine 
Revelation ;  and  third.  Redemption  from  the  world  and 
its  evil.  And  these  are  just  what  Gnosticism  espe- 
cially magnified,  and  pushed  into  false  proportions  in 
Christianity.  God  was  unknown  until  revealed  in 
Christ;  therefore  creation,  the  Old  Testament  and  its 
religion,  as  well  as  all  natural  religion  were  cast  aside 


92 


Foundationa  of  the  Nicene  Theology j 


as  belonging  to  the  Demiurge.  Christianity  was  an 
absolutely  new  revelation  of  the  science  of  the  uni- 
verse and  man  through  Christ.  It  was  "full  knowl- 
edge of  the  unutterable  greatness "  which  saved  the 
Gnostic.  Hence  Irenaeus  says:  "There  are  as  many 
schemes  of  '  redemption,'  as  there  are  teachers  of  these 
mystical  opinions"  (I,  21). 

(7)  Participation  in  redemption  or  victory  over 
the  world  of  matter  was  gained  through  the  secret 
rites  of  the  Gnostic  lodges  (I,  21,  3f.).  Initiation 
into  the  mysteries  of  marriage  to  Christ,  of  peculiar 
baptism,  of  magic  names,  of  special  anointing,  by 
which  the  secret  knowledge  of  Being  was  attained, 
formed  the  path  to  redemption.  Gnosticism  became 
more  and  more  a  system  of  religious  mysteries  and 
less  and  less  a  scheme  of  religious  philosophy.* 
Hence  its  lapse  into  lax  living.  The  initiated  man 
was  enlightened  and  what  he  did  was  not  sinful. 
Nature  was  despised;  Church  discipline  ignored;  mar- 
tyrdom avoided ;  and  the  glorious  cschatology  of  the 
first  Christians  lightly  esteemed  (I,  7). 

The  fundamental  error  of  Gnosticism  was  closely 
connected  with  the  first  article  of  our  Creed,  that  re- 
specting the  one  Almighty  God,  Creator  of  heaven 
and  earth.'^     Here,   in   an  important  sense,  history 

*Cf.  Schmidt,  Gnost.  Schriften  in  Kopt.  Sprache,  in  Text, 
u.  Utiters.  1892;  and  Zt/t.  f.  wiss.  TheoL,  1894.   H.  4. 

2  Ritschl  wrote  to  Nippold  in  1867  (1.  c.  I,  S.  18)  that 
"the  statement  of  the  conception  of  God  and  of  the  attributes 
of  God  is  still  ever  the  key  to  every  form  of  theology. "  And 
here  is  where  many  of  the  errors  of  his  own  school  begin. 
God  as  creator,  ruler,  just,  holy,  wise,  omnipotent  and  omni- 
present, is  set  aside  in  favor  of  God  who  is  love  and  revealed  in 


Laid  in  Confiict  with  Ildleninm. 


93 


repeated  itself.  The  Pharisaic  theologians  of  tlie 
century  before  Christ  set  forth  a  transcendental  view 
of  Jehovah,  which  made  Him  practically  the  Un- 
known God,  dwelling  in  the  highest  heavens,  and 
very  indirectly  concerned  with  the  things  of  earth  and 
man.  From  such  a  theory  of  God  flowed  the  other 
forbidding  doctrines  of  Rabbinical  Judaism,  its 
almost  fatalistic  predestination  of  Israel  tt)  life  and 
the  Gentiles  to  death,  its  middle  beings  between 
Jehovah  and  man,  as  the  Memra,  the  Metatron,  and 
angels,  its  magico-legal  worship  of  meritor;  is  exer- 
cises, and  its  unearthly  ascetic  life,  trying  to  make  man 
imitate  the  far-off,  unearthly  God.* 

In  like  manner  the  Gnostics  put  the  ttupre?ne  God 
infinitely  tar  away  from  man.  The  near  Ood,  the 
Dcuiiurge,  was  the  devil  of  the  Pharisees,  who  ruled 
this  world.  Fate  had  made  some  men  Gnostics  and 
others  hylics.  And  religion  was  a  mysterious  charm 
by  which  a  few  men,  like  the  six  thousand  Pharisees 
in  Israel,  attained  unto  the  Pleroma  and  Paradise.'-^ 

Jesus  only  as  love.  Even  in  the  fundamental,  conception  of 
God,  Ritschl  led  his  followers  into  confusion  by  his  Kanlian- 
Lotze  speculations.  In  .one  place  (III,  102)  he  says,  "this 
reception  of  the  idea  of  God  is  not  practical  faith,  but  an  act,  of 
theoretical  knowledge";  in  another,  however  (III*,  214),  he  says, 
"  this  reception  of  the  idea  of  (iod  is  practical  faith  and  not  an  act 
of  theoretical  knowledge"  (cf.  Schoen.  in  Nippold,  II,  247). 
Here  is  absolute  contradiction  in  the  fundamental  j)oint  of  de- 
parture, yet  the  system  of  theology  in  all  three  editions  of 
the  work  remains  the  same. 

^Cf.  Baldensperger,  Dtis  Sdbstbewuaatsein  Jesu.  2d  Ed. 
Strassburg,  1892.  S.  45  if. 

2  The  later  book,  Pistis-Sojyhia,  however,  shows  that  a 
gospel  for  all  men,  though  all  men  were  not  litte.j  to  receive  it. 


llJl 


I     M 


!    -,*. 


94 


Foundations  of  the  Kicene  Theology^ 


But  Jesus  Christ  utt  red  anathema  over  the  pride 
and  hypocrisy  of  the  Pharisees.  The  post- Apostolic 
Church,  with  equal  clearness,  denounced  the  Gnostics 
as  turning  Christianity  into  paganism,  and  the  grace 
of  God  into  lasciviousness.  In  all  parts  of  the  world, 
the  Christian  leaders  opposed  this  heresy  as  new,  as 
contrary  to  all  previous  teachings,  as  repugnant  to  the 
Christian  consciousness,  as  plainly  borrowed  from 
pagan  philosophy,  and  as  utterly  opposed  to  the 
Scriptures  of  both  the  Old  and  New  Testaments. 
Ignatius  saw  the  great  error  in  his  day  to  be  the 
teaching  that  Christ  only  "seemed  to  suffer"  (^Smyr. 
ii-iv;  Tr.  x;  Phil,  vi-ix).  Agrippa  Castor  wrote, 
about  A.  D.  130,  a  work  now  lost,  against  the  loose 
teachings,  both  theoretical  and  practical  of  Basilides.' 
Justin  in  his  work,  "Against  all  Heresies,"  written 
about  A.  D.  145,  aimed  especially  at  Gnostics,  while 
he  wrote  a  separate  work  against  Marcion.'^  Melito 
of  Sardis  wrote  on  the  Incarnation  against  Marcion,^ 
about  A.  D.  150.  In  the  year  165,  Rliodon,  a  pupil 
of  Tatian,  published  in  Rome  a  treatise  against  Mar- 
cion  and  his  pupil,  Apelles.*  He  urged  the  inability 
of  the  Marcionites  to  agree  in  their  doctrines  as  a 
proof  that  they  are  false,  and  says  every  Christian 
teacher  should  be  able  to  defend  the  faith.  Philip,  a 
bishop  of  Crete,  and  Modestus  wrote  about  A.  D.  175 
against  Marcion.      And  probably  somewhat  earlier, 

was  taught  by  some  Gnostics.    Cf.  Harnack,  Das  Gnost.  Buch 
Pistis- /Sophia.     Leipzig,  1891.  S.  63. 

»  Routh,  Relujuiae  Sacrae,  1846,  I,  p.  85. 
2  Cf.  Justin  M.,  Dialogue,  xxxv. 
8  Routh,  p.  121.     See  Lecture  III. 
*  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccles.  v.  13. 


Laid  in  Conflict  with  Hellenism. 


95 


Hegesippns,  after  traveling  through  the  churches 
East  and  West  to  learn  what  they  believed,*  wrote  his 
book  against  Gnosticism  to  give  "  the  plain  tradition 
of  the  Apostolic  doctrine."  ^  Then  came  the  elaborate 
works  of  Irenaeus  "Against  Heresies,"  that  is  Gnos- 
ticism, of  Hippolytus,  Tertullian,  and  Clement  of 
Alexandria,  which  have  come  down  to  us,  and  show 
how  thoroughly  the  Church  in  Gaul,  Italy,  North 
Africa,  and  Egypt  was  agreed  as  to  the  heathen  char- 
acter of  Gnosticism. 

Three  points  especially  were  opposed  in  this  sys- 
tem: its  theology,^  its  Christology,  and  its  eschatology, 

1  ih.  iv.  ^2;  ii.  23. 

2  ib.  iv.  8.  Cf.  Kriiger,  Altchristl  Litteratur,  Leipzig,  1895, 
S.  90. 

3  The  Gnostics  taught  three  Gods:  the  Absolute,  who  re- 
vealed himself  by  means  of  Christ,  the  Demiurge,  the  maker  of 
the  world,  and  the  world  itself.  It  is  significant  that  Irenaeus 
took  for  granted  all  that  the  Gnostics  meant  by  the  Absolute  and 
went  on  to  identify  the  Creator  with  Him.  Instead  of  three 
Gods,  the  Absolute,  the  Demiurge  and  Matter,  he  taught  one 
God,  all-powerful,  all-wise,  and  benevolent,  both  Creator  and 
Redeemer.  The  Gnostic  pessimism,  based  on  their  view  of  the 
world,  he  regarded  as  blasphemy  against  God  (II.  3,  2).  Ire- 
naeus also  contended  that  the  whole  direction  of  Gnostic  thought 
was  wrong  (II.  25,  1).  Instead  of  proceeding  from  God  to  His 
works,  these  heretics  went  always  from  the  earth  and  man  to 
God.  Like  the  school  of  Ritsehl,  they  let  their  anthropology, 
incidentally  their  Christology,  give  shape  to  their  theology. 
Their  judgments  of  value  decided  what  kind  of  God  or  gods  they 
needed.  From  three  classes  of  men — heathen,  Jews  and  Chris- 
tians— they  proceeded  to  three  classes  of  gods — Matter,  the  De- 
miurge, and  the  Unknown — the  last  of  whom  revealed  a  cosmol- 
ogy through  Christ  by  which  the  Gnostic  could  rise  to  God  (cf 
Kunze,  1.  c.  S.  3f.). 


I 

m 

-.  'ilii 


i? 


i 

i 


U    ■ 


fii     ' 


m 


96 


foundations  of  the  Nicene  Theolofjy^ 


all  of  which  wei*e  perverted  by  paganism.  The  last 
two  were  a  necessary  outgrowth  of  the  first.  The 
theory  of  an  eternal  God,  different  from  the  Creator  of 
the  world,  who  moulded  it  out  of  eternal  matter,  led 
to   docetic  views  of  Christ,  and  a  denial  of  the  resur- 

The  Gnostics  sought  to  solve  the  problem  of  evil  by  placing 
its  origin  in  matter;  but  against  this  Irenaeus  urged  the  alterna- 
tive (1)  that  such  a  theory  either  dethroned  God  from  being  the 
Great  Cause  of  all  things,  making  Him  unable  to  prevent  evil, 
and,  therefore,  less  than  the  Demiurge,  or  (2),  if  it  left  God  Su- 
preme, it  made  Him  the  author  of  evil.  The  disgrace  of  Gnosti- 
cism was  its  degradation  of  God;  a  position  not  quite  foreign  to 
that  of  a  theologian  like  Herrmann,  who  says  it  is  immaterial 
theoretically  what  view  we  take  of  God,  deistic,  theistic,  or  pan- 
theistic {Die  Heliy.  S.  86).  Irenaeus,  in  defending  one  God  also 
defended  one  humanity  against  Gnosticism.  All  change  and 
multiplicity  and  imperfection  of  action  in  human  history  came, 
he  held,  from  man,  who  is  a  creature  of  time  and  subject  to  de- 
velopment and  change  (cf  IV,  11,  2, and  Kunze,  1.  c.  S.  45),  while 
God  is  the  one  changeless  Cause.  One  God,  one  Humanity  was 
the  watchword  of  Irenaeus  against  the  three  gods  and  the  three 
humanities  of  the  Gnostics,  whom  the  school  of  Ilitschl  present 
as  the  first  teachers  of  "  Christianity  as  the  Universal  Religion." 

Hilgenfeld  {Ztft.lS^Q,  II.  I.)  thinks  Gnosticism  arose  outside 
Christianity,  but  under  the  influence  of  the  gospel,  and  readily 
penetrated  Church  teachings.  Kesslor  {Mani,  Forschungen,\%%Q) 
maintainsthat  Gnosticism  was  pagan  in  origin,  and  only  borrowed 
some  Christian  ideas,  but  ever  remained  essentially  heathen. 
Harnack  traces  Gnosticism  to  a  pre-Christian  syncretism,  which 
aimed  at  presenting  "a  universal  religion"  (I.  I79f.).  This 
movement  towards  a  religion  for  all  men  received  an  impulse, 
he  thinks,  from  Christianity,  but  did  not  at  first,  widiin  the 
Church,  get  beyond  a  multiplicity  of  Jewish  and  anti-Jewish 
attempts  of  little  imi)ortauce  towards  a  universal  religion,  until 
the  great  Gnostics,  Basilides,  Valentine,  and  the  Ophites  took 
up  the  problem  by  means  of  Greek  philosophy,  and  introduced 
an  "  acute  secularization  of  Christianity"  in  opposition  to  which 


Luid  in  Conflict  with  Ilellenisni. 


97 


rection  of  Christians.  It  also  made  men  dwelling  in 
mortal  bodies  necessarily  evil.  In  opposition  to  such 
theology,  Irenaeus  and  Tertiillian  urged  (1)  the  unity 
of  God,  (2)  the  Divine  Christ,  and  (3)  free  will  in  man 

the  gradual  secularization  or  Ilellenizing  of  Christianity  took 
place,  which  resulted  in  Catholicism.  In  this  movement  Mar- 
cionis  given  a  vei'y  prominent  place  (Ilarnack,  I.  162ff). 

Against  this  theory  of  Harnack,  that  the  Gnostics  first  pre- 
sented Christianity  as  the  "universal  religion,"  following  here 
Simon  Magus,  Ililgenfeld  urges  (1)  that  Paul  and  John — not 
Marcion — first  raised  the  question  "  what  is  Christianity':"'  just 
as  Cerinthus  did,  answering  it  by  the  rejection  of  Paul's  teach- 
ings; (2)  Cerinthus  was  a  Gnostic  yet,  instead  of  accepting  the 
"universal  religion"  of  Paul,  he  held  to  circumcision,  the  Sab- 
bath, and  an  earthly  Messianic  Kingdom;  (3)  the  Gnostics  by  set- 
ting out  from  three  classesof  men,  hylic,  psychic,  and  spiritual — 
only  one  of  whom  was  sure  of  salvation — betray  a  strange  con- 
ception of  a  religion  for  all  men,  for  man  as  man;  to  say  with 
Harnack  that  this  perversion  arose  from  the  influence  of  the 
mysteries,  is  to  say  tliat  other  influences  were  from  the  outset 
stronger  in  Gnosticism  than  its  ruling  idea;  and  (4)  to  explain 
these  inconsistencies  further  by  sharply  distinguishing  between 
the  lesser  Gnostics  of  the  first  century,  who  were  not  so  Hellenis- 
tic, and  the  greater  Gnostics — Basilides,  Valcntiue,  etc. — of  the 
second  century,  who  Mere  thoroughly  Hellenistic,  and  made 
aeons  real  ideas,  is  to  build  upon  a  difference  which  exists  to  a 
very  small  degree;  for  the  ewota  of  Simon  Magus  was  a  real 
idea,  "also  the  Logos,  whicli  appears  already  in  Cerinthus" 
(S.  33).  Hilgenfeld  thinks  Jewish  Gnostic  Christianity  passed 
from  a  Nomistic  stage  (Cerintiuis)  to  an  Anti-Nomistic  (Car- 
pocrates,  Cei*do),  trying  to  keep  within  the  Church,  till 
Marcion  saw  this  to  be  impossible  and  left  the  position  of  his 
teacher,  Cerdo,  to  form  an  independent  Church  based  on  the  ideas 
of  Gnostic  Paulinism  (S.  4G).  He  taught  a  world  Church.  This 
was  the  levelopment,  within  the  Church,  which  .Tustin  made 
culminate  in  Marcion,  as  it  began  witli  Simon  M.igus.  Looked 
at  more  philosophically  it  culminated  in  Valentine  (cf.  Lipsius 


lit! 


98 


Foundations  of  the  Nicene  Theology^ 


:i 


as  taught  in  reason,  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  in 
Apostolic  tradition.*  Against  men  like  Valentine,  it 
was  held  that  they  must  reject  God  either  as  the  Ab- 
solute or  as  the  Cause  of  all  things.'^  To  keep  God  from 
being  the  author  of  evil,  they  robbed  Him  of  creative 
power  and  took  away  His  Divine  providence.^  He  was 
weaker  than  the  Demiurge.  This  left  them  with  no 
God  over  all  things,  no  Absolute.  Irenaeus  then  went 
on  to  declare  tliis  unknown  God  of  the  Gnostics  to  be 
a  mere  fancy;  and  taught  that  the  Creator  whom  they 
blasphemously  made  a  middle  being,  was  the  only 
Supreme  God  (H.  30,  9).  He  is  reason,  the  "mind 
of  all."  He  is  ^ight,  and  can  be  seen  only  in  the  radi- 
ance which  reveals  Him  (IV.  20,  5.).  In  opposition  to 
the  supposed  conflict  between  the  justice  and  mercy  of 
God,  which  Marcion  put  in  two  Gods,  Irenaeus  taught 
that  both  met  in  the  love  of  the  one  God,  which  moved 
Him  to  reveal  His  power,  wisdom,  and  goodness  to 
man.  Instead  of  the  evolutionary  theory  of  Gnosticism 

Die  Apok.  Apostelgesch.  Braunschweig,  1887,  II,  S.  28ff,  and  S. 
624).  Gnosticism,  however,  was  too  confused  and  syncretistic 
to  be  called  a  system  (cf.  Thomasius,  D.  G.  I,  84).  The  mys- 
steries,  the  esoteric  nature  worship,  the  elaborate  ritual,  the 
brotlierly  meals  of  Gnostics  were  far  more  prominent  and  dan- 
gerous in  the  eyes  of  the  Church  than  their  theology.  "Gnosti- 
cism is  not  a  philosophical-speculative,  but  an  ecclesiastical- 
religious  development"  (Weingarten,  Zeittafeln  zur  Ivirchen- 
ffcschichte,  3d  P2dition,  Rudolstadt.  1888,  S.  9).  The  Gnos- 
tics were  theologians  in  the  second  century,  but  not  "  Me  theo- 
logians "  of  the  Church,  as  Ilarnack  asserts. 

»  See  Harnack,  D.  G.  I.  193.     Note  1. 

2  Irenaeus,  II.  1,  1;  35,  3;  III.  8,  3. 

3  Cf.  Kunze,  Die  Gotteslehre  de^  Ireimeiis,  Leipzig,  1891,  S. 
3  ff. 


Laid  in  Conflict  with  Hellenism. 


99 


— that  of  Herbert  Spencer  in  our  day — which  began 
with  paganism  having  no  God,  passed  through  Juda- 
ism with  a  demi-god,  and  finally  in  Christianity  first 
attained  a  knowledge  of  true  theism,  these  Fathers 
taught  that  God  was  revealed  in  nature,  and  spake  by 
His  spirit  in  the  Old  Testament  prophets,  before  He 
became  incarnate  in  Jesus  Christ  (HI.  24,  2;  Tertul- 
lian,  Apol.  xxi.)^  In  this  connection  I  am  remind- 
ed  of  the  practical  objections  urged   by   Tertullian 

1  With  this  battle  of  the  early  Church  in  dofence  of  God  as 
Creator  of  the  World  most  Neo-Kautian  theologians  have  little 
sympathy,  because  for  them  God  the  Creator  is  of  no  religious 
value.  Philosophy  studies  God  as  the  first  Great  Cause — so 
Plato;  ethics  studies  God  as  the  Summum  Bonum;  theology,  as 
we  see  for  example  in  Philo  (cf.  Pfleiderer,  Gifford  Lectures,  ii. 
pp.  222  f.)  unites  both  these  conceptions,  or  did  so  till  Kant  and 
Ritschl  (cf.  Kaftan,  Uas  Christenthimi  n.  die  T/icolof/ie,  1806) 
declared  that  God  as  Summum  Bonum  alone  is  the  object  of 
theology.  Hence  Engelhardt  (1.  c.  393)  thinks  that  Barnabas 
in  his  inclination  "  to  identify  the  Father  God  with  the  Lord  and 
Creator  of  the  World  "  was  drifting  away  from  primitive  Chiis- 
tianity.  That  is,  to  make  God  the  Creator  an  object  of  faith, 
love,  and  obedience  is  wrong;  it  is  God  as  Redeemer,  God  in 
Christ,  who  is  to  be  thus  regarded.  It  is  pretty  evident  that  such 
distinctions  cannot  be  followed  in  the  worship  of  Old  Testament 
saints  or  New  Testament  disciples.  The  very  phrase  "I  believe 
in  God  the  Father,  Almighty,"  which  opens  the  first  creed,  is 
on  similur  grounds  attacked  by  Engelhardt  and  Harnack  (See 
Lecture  VI.).  Yet  good,  innocent  Clement  of  Rome  goes  on 
speaking  of  the  "glorious  and  venerable  rule"  of  faith,  which 
was  to  do,  "what  is  good  and  pleasant  and  acceptable  in  the 
sight  of  Him  who  made  us."  To  say,  as  do  Ritschlian  theolo- 
gians (cf.  V.  d.  Goltz,  Ignatius.  S.  155)  that  Ignatius,  the 
first  opponent  of  Gnostic  errors,  andMarcion,  a  Gnostic  himself, 
were  the  only  two  men  in  the  second  century  who  thoroughly 


f>.\ 


V  ii 


;'!l 


100 


FoimdaUons  of  the  Nkene  Theology^ 


against  Gnosticism.  He  charges  (1)  that  it  had  no 
mission  power,  it  could  not  form  churches,  and  unite 
men  in  earnest  work;  (2)  it  could  not  produce  holy 
character,  because  rejecting  the  fear,  the  wrath  of 
God;  and  (3)  it  was  fatally  defective,  because  in  re- 
jecting the  Divine  Christ  and  not  fearing  him  as  the 

subordinated  all  cosmical  attributes  of  God  to  His  revelation  as 
"Futlier  of  Jesus  Christ,"  and  thereby  recognized  the  universal 
significance  of  the  gospel,  shows  the  extreme  position  of  this 
school,  and  its  arbitrary  statement  of  what  true  Christianity  is. 
Yet  even  Ignatius  was  in  danger.  V.  d.  Goltz  says  his  use  of 
the  phrase  "nothing  phenomenal  is  good"  shows  that  he  had  a 
Gnostic  germ,  which  needed  only  time  to  j>roduce  the  theory  of 
Marcion.  Surely  this  is  heresy-hunting  gone  crazy.  Could  not 
any  reader  of  Ritschl's  books  find  scores  of  similar  expressions, 
which,  if  found  in  Epistles  like  those  of  Ignatius,  would  give 
much  stronger  grounds  for  calling  the  writer  a  fairly  developed 
Gnostic?  If  this  be  incipient  Gnosticism,  Paul  and  John  and 
every  Father  and  Reformer  was  a  full-blown  Gnostic.  The 
attempt  (1)  to  find  Christian  teachings  in  all  Gnostic  Fragments, 
and  (2)  to  show  that  the  development  of  the  Church  teachings 
themselves  landed  in  Gnosis  is  pushed  to  an  extreme  length  by 
the  Ritschl  critics.  Pfleiderer  traces  it  to  Paul  himself  (1.  c. 
165)  and  thinks  his  "  heavenly  man"  doctrine  gave  rise  to 
Gnostic  Christology.  Bigg  well  observes,  however,  that  "  be- 
tween heathen  gnostics  and  the  gnostics  known  to  Christian  con- 
troversy there  is  no  essential  difference."  Theology,  as  com- 
pared with  the  mysteries  and  the  mass  of  superstition,  was  by  no 
means  so  prominent  a  feature  in  Gnosticism  '«s  many  critics  sup- 
pose (cf.  Leitz,  in  Ililgenfeld's  Ztft.,  1894,  S.  34f.);  while  theol- 
ogy formed  a  very  small  part  of  Church  thought,  and  theologi- 
cal literature  but  a  small  fragment  of  ecclesiastical  religious 
literature.  If  all  Christian  thought  were  compared  with  all 
Gnostic  thought,  the  few  points  of  agreement  would  sink  into 
insignificance  compared  with  recent  attempts  to  make  the  con- 
tents of  early  Church  teachings  more  and  more  Gnostic.  The 
fact  is  the  Ritschl  men  fail  to  find  Ka:  ^.'s  theory  of  knowledge 


1:1 


Laid  in  Conflict  ivith  Hellenism. 


101 


Judge  of  the  living  and  the  dead,  it  undermined  all 
sound  doctrine,  and  all  principles  of  Cliristian  living 
(  De  Pra  es.   cc .  4 1  -4  4  ) . 

Similar  dualism  was  rejected  from  Christology. 
TertuUian  calls  Christ  the  whole  truth,  divine  yet  with 
human  body  and  human  soul.  And  Irenaeus,  though 
but  one   man's  life   away  from   John,  speaks  of  the 

applied  by  anybody  either  in  the  New  Testament  or  in  Church 
history,  and  are  forced  everywhere  to  introduce  it  to  apply  it. 
Hence  V.  d.  Goltz  linds  Ignatius  sit  once  all  wrong  about  God, 
and  says  he  should  have  made  "a  fundamental  change  and  deep, 
ened  the  ancient,  basal  conception  of  the  Being  of  God  and  of 
the  nature  of  the  relation  of  man  to  Him"  (S.  153).  Von  Engel- 
hardt,  in  like  manner,  traces  nearly  all  that  he  linds  wrong  in  the 
teachings  of  Justin  to  an  incomplete  view  of  God,  borrowed  from 
tlie  Greeks,  who  ignored  the  Ritschl  theory  of  two  kinds  of 
truth  about  God  and  religion.  This  test  of  what  is  Christian  or 
Hellenic  is  carried  all  through  Patristic  theology.  But  Justin 
declared  his  contemporary,  ]\Iarcion,  had  such  a  blasphemous  view 
of  God  and  Christ,  that  he  must  have  heard  it  from  devils  (I  ApoL 
Iviii.),  just  as  P  dycarp  called  him  "  the  first-born  of  Satan" 
(Eusebius,  H.  E.  IV,  14).  The  other  anti-Gnostics  speak  in 
similar  terms.  Paul  had  strongly  opposed  spurious  Gnosis, 
and  science  falsely  so-called  (I  Tim.  vi,  20);  Ignatius  fought 
Docetism;  Justin  called  it  an  invention  of  Satan;  Irenaeus  shaped 
all  his  theology  in  opposition  to  Gnostic  errors  (of.  Kunze  1.  c. 
S.  Y 1);  TertuUian  waged  war  against  Marcion  and  like  heretics.  It 
seems  very  strange,  then,  to  hear  that  through  these  men  and 
their  immediate  successors  Gnosticism  perverted  the  whole  sys- 
tem of  Christian  doctrine.  From  the  beginning  Christian 
teachers  defended  both  faith  and  knowledge.  Clement  of  Rome 
praised  the  Corinthians  for  their  "steadfast  faith  "  (I)  and  also 
for  their  "perfect  and  sound  knowledge,"  the  union  of  which 
gave  "piety  towards  God  and  love  towards  men."  His  successors 
took  the  same  ground;  and  it  must  not  be  called  " seculariza- 
tion" of  Christianity  in  these  Fathers  when  they  defend  the 
rights  of  the  intellect  xs  well  as  of  the  heart  in  religion. 


i 


I  ,1 


1 1 


1  Ml 


Ml 


■M     II 


102 


Foundations  of  the  Xicene  Theology^ 


"  Logos  of  God "  as  Calvin  or  Hotlge  might  have 
done.  Kunze  says,  "he  adopts  from  Christian 
tradition  the  already  fully  developed  idea  of  the 
Logos"  (S.  35).  He  never  speaks  of  Christ  as 
the  mere  Word  of  God,  but  ever  presents  Him  as  real, 
eternal  Son  of  God  incarnate  in  humanhistory.  Christ 
in  eternity,  Christ  in  creation,  Christ  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, Christ  in  redemption ;  that  is  the  teaching  of 
Irenaeus  and  Tertullian ;  and  that  is  just  the  larger  out- 
line of  the  teachings  of  the  Apostolic  Fathers. 

In  like  manner  Gnostic  fatalism  which  shut  God 
out  of  the  world  and  haman  history,  making  it  all  a 
phantasmagoria,  was  broken  down  by  the  doctrine  of 
gospel  free-will,  which  called  all  men,  hylic  as  well  as 
psychic  and  pneumatic,  to  depart  from  evil,  which  was 
not  necessary,  and  turn  to  God,  who  invites  every  man 
to  believe  and  Hve.^  The  body  is  not  a  tomb,  a  prison 
of  the  soul,  but  a  temple  of  God;  there  is  a  resurrec- 
tion to  glory  far  beyond  all  Gnostic  dreams  of  the 
Pleroma,   and   there  is  a  real  coming  again  of  Christ. 

What  now  was  the  outcome  of  this  widespread  con- 
troversy in  the  Church  ?  What  effect  did  it  have  upon 
Christian  thought  and  life?  As  is  well  known,  the 
school  of  Ritschl  replies  that  the  result  was  stupen- 
dous. It  was  little  short  of  the  extinction  of  primitive 
Christianity  We  are  told  that  the  Hellenization  of 
the  gospel,  which  was  successfully  resisted  when  it  first 
swept  like  a  flood  against  the  Christian  ark,  leaked  in 
gradually  during  the  second  and  third  and  fourth  cen- 
turies, till,  in  the  form  of  the  Nicene  theology,  it 
turned  living  faith   into   dead  dogma,  and   left  the 


1  Cf.  Pressens^. 
1873,  p.  465. 


Early  years  of  Christianity.     New  York. 


Laid  in  Conflict  with  Hellenism. 


103 


Church  water-logged  to  drift  through  the  centuries. 
Most  of  this  supposed  process  does  not  belong  to  the 
present  lecture — we  have  now  to  glance  at  some 
preliminary  questions  only — but  they  are  important 
and  far-reaching  in  their  character. 

Since  the  days  of  Neander  the  powerful  action  and 
reaction  of  Gnosticism  upon  the  Church  have  been 
generally  recognized.  Its  marvelous  system  of  wor- 
ship, mysteries,  magic  and  superstition,  which  was 
chiefly  pagan  rites  poured  into  Christian  worship,  was  the 
forerunner  of  much  of  the  later  Catholic  sacramentar- 
ianism  and  priestcraft.  Behind  this  imposing,  esoteric 
ritual,  was  a  strange  philosophy  of  religion ;  and  this, 
too,  though  in  much  less  degree,  affected  the  thought 
of  the  Church.  These  two  indirect  results  of  Gnosti- 
cism, the  Christian  mysteries,  and  the  presentation  of 
the  gospel  under  definitions  as  doctrine  may  be 
frankly  admitted.  It  is  the  latter  of  these  which  must 
be  briefly  noticed  here.  What  effect  had  this  Hellen- 
ist heresy  upon  the  theology  of  the  Church  before  the 
beginning  of  the  third  century,  when  her  faith  was 
fixed  upon  the  New  Testament  Scrij^tures  ?  We  may 
reply  as  follows: 

(1)  The  anti- Gnostic  Fathers  simply  repelled  at- 
tacks upon  their  belief,  but  were  not  led  by  Gnosticism 
to  formulate  any  rival  system  of  theology.  Not  till 
danger  arose  really  from  within  the  Church  in  the  time 
of  Arius  was  a  dogmatic  statement  elaborated. 

(2)  No  peculiar  views  of  Gnosticism  passed  into 
the  general  belief  of  the  Church  of  the  second  century.' 
Hatch  devotes  three  lectures  of  his  last  work  to  the 


.  i 


1  Cf.  Matter,  Histoire  critique du  gnosticisme,  III,  40. 


104 


fi    1 


■  I' 

■I: 


Foundations  of  the  Nicenp  Theology^ 


influence  of  Hellenism  upon  post-Gnostic  theology, 
only  to  reach  the  meagre  conclusion  that  it  produced 
"  mainly  a  certain  habit  of  mind,"  "  a  tendency  to  specu- 
late "  (p.  133);  so  far  as  it  discussed  God  as  Creator, 
it  only  "  found  a  reasoned  basis  for  Hebrew  monothe- 
ism," which  had  long  been  held  in  the  Church.'  He 
says  that  in  the  doctrine  of  God  as  "Moral  Governor," 
Irenaeus  united  the  Palestinian  view  of  God  as  a  great 
"Sheyk  and  Judge"  with  the  Greek  view  of  God  as 
Fate,  by  the  Stoic  theory  of  free-will  (p.  231).  As 
if  both  Old  and  New  Testament  were  not  full  of  free- 
will teachings  from  which  Irenaeus  could  draw !  ^  It 
is  true  the  Apologists,  Aristides,  Justin  and  others, 
speak  in  lofty,  almost  transcendental  terms  after  the 
manner  of  philosophers,  and  there  is  no  doubt  but 
such  converted  pagan  sages  do  describe  God  in  the 
language  of  the  schools;  but  it  is  equally  true  that 
even  Justin's  theology  is  everywhere  essentially  Chris- 
tian. His  God  is  always  personal,  always  a  moral 
ruler  of  love,  justice,  mercy,  grace;  and  it  was  chiefly 
(1)  opposition  to  heathenism  and  (2)  a  desire  to  make 
room  for  the  Divine  Christ  that  led  him  to  speak  of 
God  in  such  transcendant  terms.^ 

1  Influet}ce  of  Greek  ideas  and  vsages  upon  the  Christian 
Church.     London,  1890,  p.  207. 

2  He  appeals  at  once  to  Scripture.  Cf.  IV.  o7,  1.  Justin 
says  Plato  got  his  theory  of  free-will  from  the  Old  Testament 
(I  Ap.  xliv.).  This  does  not  mean  that  they  might  not  think 
Greek  thoughts  into  the  Bible;  but  it  does  mean  (1)  that  they 
regarded  the  Bible  as  containing  all  that  was  necessary  for  re- 
ligion, and  (2)  that  they  knew  the  difference  between  revelation 
and  Greek  thought  and  the  danger  of  confusing  them. 

3  Cf,  Flemming,  Zur  Hedeutung  des  Christenthums  Justitis. 
Leipzig,  1893,  S.  71. 


\ 


Laid  in  Conflict  with  Ilellermm. 


105 


(3)  We  nuiat  also  boar  carefully  in  mind  the 
proper  and  necessary  limitations  to  be  observed  in 
estimating  the  influence  of  Hellenism  in  general  and 
Gnosticism  in  jmrticular  upon  early  Christianity. 
Hatch  regrets  the  loss  of  nearly  all  early  heretical 
literature,  which  makes  it  impossible  to  trace  the 
processes  by  which  he  thinks  Christian  teaching  be- 
came paganized  (p.  8f.).  Ilarnack  also  speaks  of  the 
almost  insuperable  obstacles  in  the  way  of  tracing  the 
sujiposed  Hellenization  of  the  gospel  through  the 
kaleidoscopic  syncretism  of  ancient  philosophy  and 
mysticism.  We  must  also  remember  that  the  Gnostics 
as  "the  first  theologians  in  the  Church  "  swept  the  whole 
horizon  and  touched  almost  every  possible  <[uestion 
in  Biblical  theology  and  Greek  speculation.  They 
were  especially  devoted  to  the  New  Testament.  Hence 
if  they  should  be  found  first  giving  theological  form  to 
the  thought  that  Christ  is  the  source  of  all  Chris- 
tianity, that  the  Apostles  were  transmitters  of  His 
teachings,  that  the  gospel  is  above  all  else  redemption 
from  evil,  that  the  New  Testament  is  peculiarly  the 
Word  of  God,  that  sin  roots  in  the  ver}'-  nature  of 
man,  that  hell  is  eternal  destruction,  or  that  pardou 
springs  from  trust  in  God's  love — a  point  in  which 
Harnack  thinks  they  were  more  Christian  than  the 
Greek  Church  (cf.  his  Pistis- Sophia^ — it  would  be 
quite  wrong  to  argue  that  such  doctrines,  because 
preached  by  Gnostics,  are  therefore  of  Hellenistic 
origin.  But  a  still  more  important  limitation  lies  in 
the  nature  of  Gnosticism  itself.  This  system  stood  for 
the  rights  of  knowledge  in  religion.  Hence  the 
school  of  Ritschl  thinks  it  was  evil  and  that  continu- 
ally.    Hatch  says  the  three  great  corrupters  of   early 


f  i   1:.:. 


|l 


EJ'  I     f, 


/ 


■II: 


106 


Foundatlom  of  the  yicene  Theology^ 


Christianity  were  Greek  rhetoric,  Greek  logic,  and 
Greek  metaphysics.  That  is  a  summary  of  his  lop- 
sided view  of  theology  and  history  of  doctrine.  But 
what  is  Greek  rhetoric  save  the  best  form  of  human 
rhetoric?  And  what  is  Greek  logic  but  just  what  Sir 
William  Hamilton  declared  all  logic  to  be,  "the  science 
of  the  laws  of  thought  as  thought."  And  what  was 
the  current  philosophy  of  Greece  other  than  just  the 
philosophy  which  always  appears  when  the  best 
human  reason  turns  towards  the  problems  of  God, 
man  and  the  universe?  What  Christianity  recog- 
nizes as  true  in  natural  theology,  what  reason  de- 
mands respecting  the  origin,  the  person,  the  work  of 
Christ,  and  what  explanation  man's  mind  must  give 
of  the  meaning  of  the  gospel  and  of  the  hope  that  is 
in  us,  cannot  be  labeled  as  Gnosticism  and  thrust  out 
of  our  holy  religion.  To  estimate,  therefore,  what 
foreign  element  Gnosticism  brought  into  Christianity, 
we  must  subtract  (1)  what  the  Gnostics  held  in  com- 
mon with  all  Christians,  (2)  what  the  Church  held 
religiously  but  which  was  stamped  theologically  by 
the  Gnostics,  (3)  what  belongs  to  man's  reason  and 
any  intelligent  presentation  and  defence  of  Chris- 
tianity, and  (4)  what  can  be  just  as  naturally  traced 
to  the  Bible  as  to  Hellenism.' 

*  It  is  very  important  to  see  that  Christian  teachings  formed 
the  rule  and  foreign  ideas  the  exception  in  the  early  Church. 
It  must  also  be  borne  in  mind  that  most  of  these  foreign  ideas 
were  thoughts  of  natural  virtue  or  theology  already  supported 
by  Scripture  or  involved  in  its  teachings.  The  Church  arose 
when  the  disciples  by  sensible  proofs  were  convinced  that  Jesus 
had  actually  risen  and  was  in  their  midst.  And  that  Church 
continued  to  teach  the  great  essentials  of  the  gospel.     Zahn  re- 


%'■        ':' 


^  ;'; 


Laid  in  Conflict  ivith  JleUeaism. 


107 


(4)  Througli  tho  struggle  with  Gnosticism, 
the  learning  of  the  Church  passed  from  the  con- 
venticle to  the  school.  The  traveling  evangelist  with 
a  irift  of  utterance  was  Huccccdcd  hy  the  converted 
pirdosopher  or  the  preacher  trained  in  classic  wis- 
dom as  well  as  in  the  Scriptures.  The  first  theologi- 
cal senunary  now  appeared  in  Alexandria,  where  the 
opposition  to  Gnosticism,  which  ridiculed  faith,  de- 
manded Christian  development  of  faith  into  knowl- 
edge. Three  great  schools  of  thought  appeared  as 
part  of   the  indirect   influence  of  the  struggle  with 

marks:  "For  the  continuity  of  the  development  from  that 
time  (the  resurrection)  on  to  Irenaeus  is  unquestionable " 
{JCumm,  1.  c).  The  complex  of  doctrines,  customs  and  or- 
ganizations, which  arose  and  g.-we  Christianity  a  different 
aspect  from  its  ori/inal  form,  could  not  arise  in  a  day;  hence 
to  speak  -^f  the  "origin  of  the  early  Catholic  Church,"  as 
taking  place  suddenly  in  the  second  half  of  the  second  century 
— about  A.  D.  180 — is  quite  misleading.  Zahn  rightly  insists 
that  this  Churjh  of  Irenaeus  had  "no  prehistoric  period;"  but 
can  be  traced  from  the  beginning.  Hatch  says  (p.  252)  that 
the  Ebionites,  Alogi  (perhaps  a  dozen  men  or  more  in  Rome), 
and  the  Clementines  were  "in  the  original  sphere  of  Christian- 
ity"; but  this  modified  Baurism  exalts  the  exception  into  the 
rule,  and  covers  the  lack  of  proof  of  such  statements  by  a 
lamentation  over  the  loss  of  e.arly  heretical  literature  (p.  9). 
The  Church  in  opposing  the  Gnostics,  and  other  early  heretics, 
took  the  right  weapons.  Instead  of  setting  up  a  rival  phil- 
osophy or  new  speculations,  the  appeal  was  made  to  historic 
Christianity  as  always  preached  and  believed  from  the  Apostles 
down,  to  living  tradition,  to  Apostolic  writings,  and  to  the  fact 
that  such  errors  had  always  been  opposed.  Ignatius,  Irenaeus 
and  TertuUian  took  the  same  position  toward  the  Ajtostles 
that  Ritschl,  Herrmann  and  Ilarnack  take  toward  the  German 
Reformers.     Neither  were  these  early  theologians  less  critical 


108 


Foundations  of  the  Nicene  Theology^ 


if    !'■ 


Hellenism.  Tertullian  and  his  followers,  both  ortho- 
dox and  Montanist,  in  North  Africa  and  Asia  Minor, 
preached  practical  duty,  prayer  for  the  Holy  Ghost, 
and  a  defensive  attitude  towards  secular  learning,  as 
the  course  to  be  followed  against  all  heresy.  Clement 
and  the  men  of  Alexandria  founded  a  seat  of  learning 
in  which  to  oppose  worldly  wisdom,  by  the  higher 
Christian  wisdom,  making  all  Greek  philosophy  a 
slave-tutor  to  lead  the  ignorant  into  the  school  of 
Christ.  A  third  party  of  teachers  from  Rome  and 
Asia  Minor,  followers  of  Polycarp,  viz.,  Irenaeus  and 

than  many  of  their  modern  successors.  Justin  says  of  "  the 
opinions  of  the  ancientB"  {I  Ap.  ii.):  "Reason  enjoins  those 
who  are  truly  pious  and  philosophical  to  honor  and  love  only 
what  is  true,  refusing  to  follow  opinions  of  the  ancients,  if 
these  be  worthless."  He  was  converted,  about  A.  D.  130,  in 
Ephosus,  by  an  aged  man,  who  must  have  knoAvn  Apostolic 
Christians,  very  likely  John  himself;  hence  Justin  who  wrote 
in  Rome  could  appeal  with  confidence  to  the  transmitted  gos- 
pel, which  came  through  the  Apostles  from  Jesus  Christ.  He 
says  Christianity  must  be  sought  by  "reading  the  teachings  of 
Christ"  (II  Apol.  iii.);  and  these  were  contained  in  the 
"Memoirs  of  His  Apostles  "  (I  Ap.  Ixvi. ;  Dial.  c.,ci.,civ.,cv., 
cvi).  These  transmitted  teachings  were  easily  distinguished 
from  false  doctrines.  Paul  had  taught  the  truth  in  opposition 
to  heresies  (Gal.  v.  20;  Titus  iii.  16);  and  all  following  Chris- 
tian teachers  took  the  same  attitude.  It  is  especially  important 
to  notice  the  unanimity  of  belief  on  the  great  doctrinal  essen- 
tials in  the  Church  of  the  second  and  third  centuries,  when 
no  great  councils  appeared  to  promote  unity  of  teachings  and 
all  were  free  to  leave  the  Church  if  its  preaching  were  distaste- 
ful. Pressens6  observes  of  this  common  faith  [Edrli/  years  of 
(Jhristianitij,  New  York,  1873,  p.  4):  "We  must  surely  regard 
this,  not  as  a  system  composed  and  formulated  by  the  authority 
of  a  school,  but  as  the  faith  itself,  in  its  truest  instinct  and 
most  spontaneous  r^anifestatiou." 


''ll 


Laid  in  Conjlict  with  IIelle,Asm. 


100 


Ilippolytus,  took  the  golden  middle  way,  admitting 
truth  both  from  reason  and  revelation,  and  pointed 
out  the  path  which  the  Church  has  ever  since  fol- 
ic ed.  Irenaeu8  sums  up  the  anti-Gnostic  the- 
ology as  follows:  "We  hold  that  there  is  one  Al- 
mighty God,  who  created  all  things  by  His  Word  and 
fashioned  them,  and  formed  from  what  did  not  exist 
all  things  that  exist;  as  the  Scripture  saith,  By  the 
Word  of  the  Lord  were  the  heavens  made,  and  all 
the  host  of  them  l)y  the  breath  of  His  mouth  (Ps. 
xxxiii.  0).  All  things  were  made  by  Him,  and  with- 
out Him  was  not  anything  made  that  was  made 
(John  i.  3).  Now  from  all  things  nothing  is  omit- 
ted: the  Father  made  all  things  by  Him,  whether 
visible  or  invisible,  objects  of  sense  or  intelligence, 
temporal,  because  of  a  certain  character,  or  eternal. 
He  made  them  not  by  angels  nor  by  any  powers 
separated  from  His  thought — for  God  needs  none  of 
all  these  beings — but  by  His  word  and  His  Spirit, 
He  makes  and  disposjes  and  governs  and  presides  over 
all  things.  This  GoJ,  wdio  made  the  world — for  the 
world  includes  all--(lii3  God  who  fashioned  man,  this 
God  of  Abraham,  this  God  of  Isaac,  this  God  of 
Jacob,  above  whom  there  is  no  other  God,  nor  Be- 
ginning, nor  Power,  nor  Pleroma,  this  God  as  we  shall 
show,  is  the  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  "  (I,  22, 
1;  HL  4;  HL  11,  7).  L-enaeus  calls  this  state- 
ment, "The  Rule  of  Truth."  He  knew  it  expressed 
the  mind  of  the  Church.  Its  doctrines  are  set  forth 
by  Hippolytus(yV<'//.  x.  32,  33),  and  Tertullian;  they 
underlie  the  Alexandrian  theology;  and  have  con- 
tinued until  ourday  as  part  of  the  basis  of  Christian  the- 
ology (cf.  Tertullian,  De  jiyraes.  her.  viii.  and  xxxvi.). 


110 


Foundationa  of  the  Nicene  Theology ^ 


(5)  But  the  greatest  immediate  effect  of  Gnosti- 
cism upon  Cliristiauity  came  througli  its  challenge  of 
the  claims  of  the  Church  to  represent  Christ  and  His 
gospel.  The  men  of  knowledge  with  their  "  universal 
religion "  consigned  the  heathen  to  destruction,  ad- 
mitted Jews  and  ordinary  Christians  to  the  lower 
heavens;  but  reserved  for  themselv^es,  as  the  only  true 
disciples,  supreme  immortality.^  The  indignant  reply 
of  the  Church  to  such  assumption  was  an  appeal  to 
history.  Clement  of  Rome  was  ordained  by  Apostles. 
Polycarp  was  taught  by  John.  Irenaeus  learned 
from  Polycarp.  The  Churches  in  Corinth,  Rome, 
Galatia  had  the  Epistles  of  Paul.  The  words  of 
Christ  were  still  remembered  by  old  men  who  had 
heard  them  from  the  Twelve.  In  face  of  these  things 
how  could  the  Gnostics  pretend  to  be  the  true  Chris- 
tians? Their  answer  was  manifold.  They  said  they 
had  a  secret  doctrine  received  from  the  Apostles ; "  they 
rejected  the  Old  Testament  as  a  Jewish  book,  aiul 
appealed  to  the  New  Testament,  adding  apocryphal 
books  to  it;  they  renounced  Apostolic  authority  when 


1  Hence  we  hear  heart-breaking  inquiries  in  the  tistis- 
Sophia  about  the  fate  of  relatives  who  did  not  receive  the 
light  of  life.  But  it  was  just  on  the  practical  side,  o"  conversion 
of  sinners,  gathering  of  followers,  and  training  in  holiness  that 
the  Gnostics  utterly  failed.  They  showed  no  signs  of  the 
"survival  of  the  fittest"  or  of  that  perseverance  that  marks  the 
saints.  Ilarnack  sees  this  fatal  weakness  of  Gnosticism  and  re- 
marks (I,  180):  "  The  inability  to  organize  con tjregdt ions  and  dis- 
cipline them,  which  is  characteristic  of  all  philosophical  relig- 
ious movements,  doubtless  greatly  limited  the  Gnostic  propa- 
ganda. " 

2Cf.  Clement  of  Alex.  jStrom.  vii.  100. 


Laid  in  Co7)flict  with  Hellenism. 


HI 


necessary ;  *  they  led  the  way  in  exegetical,  ethical 
and  dogmatic  theology,  to  explain  away  the  Scrip- 
tures and  traditional  doctrines. 

What  could  be  said  in  reply  to  such  criticisms? 
The  proldem  was  not  very  unlike  that  presented 
to  the  orthodox  Church  of  our  day  by  the  theolo- 
gy of  llitschl.  Tertullian  tells  us''^  that  the  Gnos- 
tics, like  the  Neo-Kantians,  set  out  from  a  Neo- 
Platonic  theory  of  knowledge,  which  turned  New 
Testament  history  into  allegorical  judgments  of 
value.  Both  teach  such  a  unique  revelation  of  God 
in  Christ  as  sets  aside  the  Old  Testament;  on 
similar  grounds,  Baur  called  Schleiermacher  a  Gnostic' 
Ritschl  would  agree  with  Marcion  that  there  is  no 


1  Irenaeus,  ILier.  I,  13,  C;  III,  2. 

2  De  Atihna,  xvii. ;  cf.  Hatch  p.  123.  Tertullian  argues  that 
the  phouoinenal  theory  of  perception  would  (1)  cast  discredit  upon 
the  Revelation  in  Christ,  for  Jesus  as  a  man  might  not  really 
"behold  Satan  as  lightning  fall  from  Heaven,"  or  "hear  the 
Father's  voice  testifying  of  Himself,"  or  be  sure  that  ho 
"  touches  Peter's  wife's  mother,"  or  know  that  he  tasted  the 
wine  at  the  Last  Supper.  He  adds,  "  on  this  false  principle  it 
was  that  Marcion  chose  to  believe  that  he  was  a  phantom,  deny- 
ing to  Him  the  reality  of  a  perfect  body."  (2)  Ho  than  shows 
that  if  the  senses  can  tell  only  of  phenomena  to  the  soul,  the 
Avitnoss  of  the  Apostles  about  Christ  is  overthrown.  Ho  quotes 
I  John  i.  1,  to  show  the  actual  knowledge  to  which  the  disciples 
testilied. 

s  Comparatur  Gnosticls/nKscion  Schleiermncher.  Tlicolofjicxie 
indole,  reference  in  Hilgenfehl's  Ztft.  189J,  S.  220.  Ncander, 
long  ago,  said  of  such  a  view  of  Christ  that  thereby 
"Christianity  became  an  'solatod  fragment,  for  which  no 
preparation  had  been  made,  and  without  any  point  of  con- 
nection in  either   nature  or   history."     [Planting  and  Training 


112 


I'^oundations  of  the  2^icene  Theology^ 


knowledge  of  the  Supreme  God  to  be  gained  from 
nature  or  history  or  Greek  and  Roman  paganism.' 
Both  made  Jesus  Christ  docetic,  the  one  making  His 
divinity  only  an  impression,  the  .other  making  His 
humanity  a  religious  picture  for  devotion.  Both 
agree  in  rejecting  eschatology  and  making  Christianity 
a  battle  now  for  superiority  over  the  world.  They 
both  especially  set  aside  the  Virgin  birth  of  Jesus  and 
His  resurrection  as  non-esseitial  to  our  religion;  they 
make  light  of  His  prccxlot'mce.  Both  deny  any  per- 
sonal relation  to  the  Supreme  God;  God  can  be 
approached  only  through  knowledge  of  Christ,  and 
that  knowledge  can  be  found  only  in  the  Church  with 
her  sacraments  and  moral  atmosphere.  The  cry  in 
both  schools  is  "  Back  to  Christ,"  ''Seek  and  ye  shall 
find";  hence  ihe  inquiry  of  the  Cliurch,  then  as  now, 
has  been:  How  shall  we  get  back  to  Christ? 

The  answer  found  to  this  question  was  threefold: 
(1)  through  the  simple  gospel  confession  of  faith  by 
which  every  Christian  is  admitted  to  the  Church,  the 
baptismal  rule  of  truth;  (2)  through  the  New  Testa- 
ment, which  contains  the  words  of  Jesus  and  the 
teachings  of  the  Apostles;  (S)  through  the  official 
leaders  of  the  Church,  especially  the  bishops,  who 
came  to  be  considered  the  true  transmitters  of  Apos- 


ofthe  Chr.  Church.  Engl.  Transl.  1876,  London,  II,  p.  492.) 
The  truth  which  TertuUian  set  forth  in  opposition  to  such 
Gnostic  dualism,  and  which  must  be  still  defended,  was  that 
of  one  God  revealed  in  reason,  nature,  the  Scriptures,  his- 
tory, and  Christ. 

1  Marcion  is  the  one  man  whom  Haruack  delights  to  honor. 
He  alone  partially  understood  Paul  in  the  second  century  (I, 
199  f.). 


Laid  in  Conflict  with  Ilellenisni. 


113 


tolic  doctrine.  In  other  words,  a  simple  creed,  like 
the  so-called  Apostles'  Creed,  came  into  use  against 
heresy;  the  New  Testament  books  were  collected,  and 
all  nor -Apostolic  writings  excluded.  Finally  the 
early  Catliolic  Church  took  on  its  authoritative  Epis- 
copal form.  These  are  most  important  results  of  the 
Gnostic  controversy;  but  they  must  not  be  pressed 
too  far.  We  must  remember  in  the  first  place  that 
they  are  not  all  equally  right  or  wrong;  the  adoption 
of  a  simple  form  of  faith,  and  the  collection  of  Apos- 
tolic writinojs  as  a  standard  of  reliijious  life  and  doc- 
trine  rest  upon  words  of  Christ  and  sober  inferences 
from  them;  while  the  growth  of  the  Episcopal  Church 
organization  has  no  such  basis,  but  is  much  more  con- 
ventional and  arbitrary,  borrowing  from  Old  Testament 
usages  or  even  from  current  civil  methods.  AVe  must 
remember,  further,  that  it  is  misleading  to  speak  as  if 
the  early  Catholic  Church  with  its  Apostles'  Ci-'jcd 
and  its  New  Testament  sprang  suddenly  into  ])eiug 
over  the  graves  of  the  Gnostics  and  Montanists.  The 
remark  of  a  French  archaeologist,  "An  art  never  im- 
provises itself,"  is  surely  equally  true  of  the  so-called 
early  Catholic  Church.  We  cannot  find  any  such 
transformation  in  the  Christianity  of  the  first  two 
centuries  as  the  school  of  Ritschl  suppose.  Zahn  says 
"  the  continuity  of  development  from  the  day  of  the 
resurrection  of  Christ  on  to  Irenaeus  is  uncpiestioii- 
able."^  No  group  of  events  burst  forth  about  A.  D. 
180,  to  make  the  Church  quite  different  then  from 
what  it  was  between  ISO-KIO.-     The  simple  Rule  of 

1  Gesch.  d.  N.  Test.  luowns.  I.  S.  445. 

2  He  refers  especially  to  the  supposL'<l  .sudden  appearance  of 
a  New  Test.   Canon. 


I 


■U1 


i.'c 


114 


Foundations  of  the  Nieene  llieologij^ 


'••♦ 


SI  'I' 


Faith  which  received  emphasis  and  precision  in  the 
contest  with  the  Gnostics,  was  kr  )\vn  as  a  baptismal 
creed  from  the  days  of  the  Apostles,*  and  the  New 
Testament,  which  Harnack  makes  a  sudden  "  Reduc- 
tion" of  all  early  Christian  literature,- a  crystallization 
of  its  best  portions  into  a  Canon  at  the  touch  of 
heresy,  was  used  as  Scripture  long  before  its  books 

were  collected  (cf.  Zahn,  N.  T.  Kanon^  I.  S. 
430). 

The  great  authority  to  which  the  anti-Gnostic 
Fathers  appealed  was  the  teachings  of  Christ  as  given 
by  the  Apostles.''     These  teachings  were  found  (1)  in 

1  Cf.  Caspari,  Qudlen  zur  Gesch.  des  TaufsymbolSy  18G6- 
1875.      Bd.  Ill,  S.  207  f. 

2  Das  N.  Test,  nm  das  Jahr  200.     Freiburg,  1889,  S.  111. 

8  Harnack  thinks  belief  in  the  twelve  Apostles  as  founders 
of  the  Church  universal  is  "  a  dogmatic  construction  of  history," 
i;n  "a  prioi'i  theory"  (I,  109)  invented  by  the  " naive"  post- 
Apostolic  Church  to  meet  supposed  needs.  But  such  a  view 
must  (1)  contradict  the  statements  of  the  New  Testar  ent,  in 
which  Christ  made  the  Twelve  founders  of  the  Church  (Matt, 
xviii.  18;  xxviii.  19);  (2)  itdoes  not  give  weight  to  the  admitted 
fact  that  *'  the  first  missionaries  including  Paul  spread  the  theory 
of  the  unique  importance  of  the  Twelve  "  (I,  109);  (3)  it  argues 
chioHy  from  silence,  and  such  an  argument  could  prove  from  the 
Apostolic  Fathers  that  Paul  did  little  as  foreign  missionary,  and 
that  Polycarp  did  not  know  John;  (4)  it  fails  to  account  for  the 
appearance  of  this  theory  of  Apostolic  origin  in  all  parts  of  the 
Church,  as  Harnack  points  out,  ''in  Asia  Minor,  Rome  and 
Egypt,"  with  IMarcion  the  sole  exception;  (5)  it  cannot  explain 
tile  universal  teaching  of  the  Apos^tolic  and  the  post-Apostolic 
Church  that  the  Apostles  wore  guarantee  of  the  true  teachings  of 
Jesus — to  say  the  noed  produced  the  theory  in  the  absence  of 
positive  proof  lands  us  in  the  atmosphere  of  Strauss  again;  (6) 
neither  can  this  "a  priori  theory"  find  its  explanation  in  <'the 


Laid  in  Conflict  with  Hellenism. 


115 


the  Rule  of  Faith  and  (2)  in  New  Testament  writ- 
ings. Tertullian  appealed  especially  to  the  first,  as  a 
swift  injunction  against  heresies;  Irenaeus  relied 
chiefly  upon  the  Scriptures ;  but  both  Creed  and  Canon 
were  used  as  defences  of  the  faith. 

The  view  of  the  post-Gnostic  Church  on  the  Rule 
of  Faith  may  be  summed  up  as  follows: 

necessity  of  warding  off  the  sad  consequences  of  the  unfettered 
religious  enthusiasm  and  the  unbounded  religious  imagination" 
which  marked  the  first  Church;  for  neither  the  New  Testament 
nor  post-Apostolic  literature  shows  any  such  fear  of  enthusiasm 
as  would  create  an  Apostolic  theory  for  defence.  Even  the 
Didache  does  not  do  so.  Tertullian,  who  was  a  Montanist  and 
believed  to  an  extreme  in  enthusiasm  and  prophecy,  was  the 
strongest  defender  of  the  twelve  Apostles.  (Cf.  iJe  Praes. 
xxv.-xxvi.)  He  declares  no  heretics  claimed  succession  from 
the  Apostles  {ib.).  Harnack  finds  the  theory  of  Ai)ostolic  tra- 
dition rooted  in  the  words  of  Clement  of  Rome  (xlii):  <'Tlie 
Apostles  have  preached  the  gospel  to  us  from  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ:  Jesus  Christ  was  sent  forth  from  God.  Christ,  there- 
fore, is  from  God,  and  the  Apostles  from  Christ.  Both  these 
things  took  place  in  order  by  the  will  of  God."  Yet  he  admits 
that  such  a  doctrine  is  "a  primitive  view";  for  "that  the 
Twelve  proclaimed  all  one  and  the  same  thing,  that  they  pro- 
claimed it  to  the  world,  that  Christ  chose  them  for  this  calling, 
that  the  churches  possessed  the  testimony  of  the  Apostles  as  stand- 
ard, are  decisive  theses,  which  can  be  traced  as  far  back  as  the 
literary  fragments  left  us  from  the  Gentile  Churches  extend." 
He  adds:  "The  peculiar  traditional  conce])tion — God,  Christ, 
twelve  Apostles,  the  Church — belongs  to  the  first  things  in 
the  Gentile  Church."  In  other  Avords,  men  who  saw  the 
Apostles  in  both  the  East  and  West  declare  the  churches  fol- 
lowed Apostolic  teachings;  but  notwithstanding  this,  we  are  told 
they  were  wrong,  and  invented  an  "a  priori  theory"  to  meet 
their  needs.  Harnack  thinks  the  Church  from  the  end  of  the 
Apostolic  age  believed  in  the  authority  of   the  Twelve,  and  still 


116 


Foundations  of  the  Xicene  Theology^ 


111* 


m 


J  f. 
It.  ,v 


(1)  Its  teachings  came  from  the  Apostles.  Clem- 
ent of  Rome,  a  contemporary  of  Paul  and  John,  wrote 
to  the  Church  in  Corinth:  "The  Apostles  preached  the 
gospel  to  us  from  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  Jesus  the 
Christ  was  sent  forth  from  God.  Christ,  therefore, 
was  sent  forth  from  God  and  the  Apostles  from  Christ. 
Both   these  things,  therefore,   took   place   in    happy 

calls  it  ii  luHtoric  fiction  that  Jesus  commissioned  the  Apostles  as 
Ilia  immediate  disci j)le8  to  carry  the  gospel  to  all  the  world  and 
found  churches.  He  says  such  a  fiction  could  he  produced  only 
through  an  utter  lack  of  apprehension  of  Vaul's  teachings  in  the 
post-Apostolic  Church,  and  deep  ignorance  of  the  religious  con- 
troversies of  the  Apostolic  age.  15ut  this  supposed  disappear- 
ance of  Paul  is  not  enough  to  account  for  the  manufacture  of 
the  myth  of  the  twelve  Apostles  as  founders  of  the  Church. 
Ilarnack  points  out  that  the  influence  of  Paul  was  strong  enough 
in  the  Gentile  churches  to  spread  the  doctrine  that  Christianity 
is  the  universal  religion,  and  to  strip  off  Jewish  rites  like  cir- 
cumcision and  literal  observance  of  the  Mosaic  Law.  Now  this 
Paulinism  involved  all  the  points  in  dispute  between  Jewish  and 
Gentile  Christians.  The  Roman  Church  of  Clement  was  largely 
Jewish,  so  was  that  of  Antioch  over  which  Ignatius  presided; 
and  yet  those  teachers,  who  knew  Apostles  personally,  recog- 
nized both  Paul's  teachings  and  the  authority  of  the  twelve 
Apostles.  Many  of  the  Gentile  churches  had  nothing  to  do 
with  Paul;  they  received  the  common  Christianity  of  the  first 
converts;  yet  every  phase  of  Christian  life,  Jewish  Christian, 
Hellenic  Christian,  Pauline  Christian,  professed  the  faith  taught 
by  the  Twelve.  This  could  not  be  a  fiction.  However  far  into 
the  second  century  Jewish  and  Gentile  Christianity  ran  in  an- 
tagonistic courses,  it  seems  certain  that  the  Gentile  churches 
looked  with  less  and  less  favor  upon  the  usages  and  traditions 
of  their  Jewish  brethren;  hence,  unless  the  Apostles  had  actually 
been  recognized  from  the  first  as  the  authoritative  teachers  of 
the  whole  Church,  the  Gentile  Churches,  who  were  especially 
connected  with  Paul,  would  not  have  been  inclined  to  create  the 
fiction  of  the  authority  of  the  Twelve. 


Laid  in  Conflict  with  Ilelleni.wi. 


117 


order  according  to  the  will  of  God  "(xlii.).  This  idea 
of  the  Apostolic  foundation  of  the  Church  thus  l)egins 
with  comj)anions  of  the  Twelve  and  continued  steadily 
on  among  both  orthodox  and  hci'ctics.  ITarnack  says 
thehelief  that  Christ  chose  the  Twelve  to  i^ivethe  c^os- 
pel  to  the  world,  and  that  the  Church  had  the  testi- 
mony of  the  Apostles  as  guarantee  of  her  faith,  "  are 
decisive  theses,  which  can  be  traced  as  far  back  as 
fraijmonts  left  us  by  tlie  Gentile  churches  extend." 
The  Apostles'  Creed  arose  before  the  Gnostic  con- 
troversy. 

(2)  The  teachings  of  this  Ilule  of  Faith  stood 
for  the  belief  of   all  the  Apostles.'      Paul   and   the 

^  The  fact  that  the  Christianity  which  prevailed  in  the  sec- 
ond century  was  neither  Jewish  nor  l*:iulino  (Cf.  Sohm,  Umriss, 
S.  19),  but  just  the  common  Christianity  as  preached  every- 
where and  embracing  what  belonged  equally  to  James  and  Peter, 
Paul  and  John,  points  to  a  common  origin  of  the  goHi)el  in 
Ai)ostolic  teachings.  It  was  the  Christianity  of  Christ  as 
apprehended  by  the  whole  of  the  first  circle  of  believers,  in- 
cluding, as  the  school  of  llitschl  urge,  Paul  himself.  In  the 
outset  of  his  Epistle  to  the  Romans  (i.  10)  he  said:  "  I  am  not 
ashamed  of  the  gospel  of  Christ,"  taking  for  granted  that  the 
Church  in  Rome  knew  the  gospel  whicli  he  set  himself  to  defend. 

Pfleiderer  (II.  p.  230f.)  says  Paul  was  half  Pharisaic  and 
half  Hellenist  in  his  thinking;  heuai  Imwn^:  ho{\\  dx) /lutch  mid 
too  little  JcxL'ish  to  succeed  as  a  teacher  of  the  Gentiles;  too  much 
in  holding  to  the  Law,  vicarious  atonement  and  imputed  right- 
eousness (these  came  from  IMiarisaic  theology),  for  these  the 
Gentiles  could  not  grasj);  and  too  little  in  his  sUoiig  contrast  of 
law  and  gospel,  works  and  failli,  which  led  many  Gentile  Chris- 
tians to  discredit  the  Old  Testament  ami  fall  into  anli-nomian- 
ism,  as  did  Marcion.  The  I'esult  was  that  the  Church  dropped 
the  Pharisaic  side  of  Paul's  teachings  and  held  to  the  Hellen- 
istic, as  appears  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  and  tlie  Gospel  of 
John.     But  if  these  later  writings  are  "  Ilelleuized  Paulinism 


I 


1  ■ 


118 


Fimndations  of  the  Kicene  Theology^ 


(*■» 


<  i!i 


If 


Twelve  were  classed  together  as  founders  of  the  Gen- 
tile churches,'  though  it  was  known  that  Peter  and 
others  labored  chiefly  among  Jews  (Irenaeus,  iv.  24). 
Most  of  the  Apostles  went  first  to  the  Jews  in  the  Dis- 
persion, and  through  these  Hellenic  Jewish  churches 
exerted  great  influence  upon  all  other  churches.^     It 

or  Paulinized  Hellenism"  the  great  majority  of  Christian  schol- 
ars, including  the  school  of  Ritschl,  are  still  unable  to  see  any 
such  metamorphosis  or  diversity  of  views  as  Pfleiderer  describes. 
Paul  remains  the  terror  and  insuperable  barrier  to  all  rational- 
istic theology.  lie  will  not  down.  Harnack  writes  in  a  tone 
of  half  resignation,  half  despair,  "to  show  that  the  Pauline 
theology  is  neither  identical  with  the  original  gospel,  nor,  much 
less,  with  any  later  doctrines,  needs  so  much  historical  judgment 
and  so  much  good  will  not  to  let  oneself  be  led  astray  in  his 
investigation  by  the  Canon  of  the  New  Testament,  that  there  is 
no  point  of  time  in  sight  at  which  a  change  in  current  views  can 
be  hoped  for "  (I.  S.  93).  That  suggests,  first  of  all,  that 
"historical  judgment"  and  "good  will"  are  rather  closely  con- 
fined to  the  school  of  Ritschl.  It  suggests  still  further,  that  so 
long  as  the  New  Testament  is  accepted  as  the  Word  of  God, 
and  Paul's  claim  to  preach  the  very  gospel  of  Christ  is  recog- 
nized as  true,  there  is  no  lio])e  for  the  spread  of  what  these 
theologians  call  the  primitive  gospel. 

1  Cf.  Ignatius,  Tmll. 
A]»ostle,"  and  Horn,  iv., 
Paul."  Justin,  I  AjwI.  .30,  says 
out  into  the  world  men,  twelve  in  number  ....  who 
proclaimed  to  every  race  of  men  that  they  were  sent  by  Christ 
to  teach  to  all  the  Word  of  God,"  (cf.  c.  49);  and  Irenaeus  holds 
about  the  Apostles  all  that  is  now  held  (cf.  II.  21,  1;  III,  Pref. ; 
III.  12,  1;III.  18,  1,  where  Paul's  equal  authority  is  taught. 
Cf.  also  Tertullian,  De  Pracs.  vi.,  xxii.,  xxxvi.). 

2  Nothing  opposes  while  much  supports  the  view  that  the 
twelve  Apostles,  who  were  sent  by  Christ  Himself  only  to  the 
lost  sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel,  wore  sent  forth  also  after  Pen- 
tecost to  the  twelve  tribes  throughout  the  world  (cf.  I  Peter  i. 


iii. — "  I  do  not  command  you  as  an 
"I  do  not  command  you  as  Peter  and 
' '  From  Jerusalem  there  went 


Laid  in  Coujlitt  with  Ilellenisin. 


Ill) 


ne 

he 

n- 

i. 


is  only  in  this  sense  that  men  like  Justin  (1.  c.)  and 
Origen,  (6'.  Cels.^  viii.  47)  regarded  tlie  Twelve  as 
teachers  of  the  Church  universal  (cf.  Nosgen,  II.  29). 
John  had  preached  in  Asia  Minor;  Peter  appears  to 
have  been  in  Home  and  Corinth;  early  tradition  sent 
other  Apostles  far  hence  to  the  Gentiles ;  and  Jewish 
Christians  were  widespread  in  the  second  century 
(cf.  Slater,  pp.  222fF.).  If  Matthew  xxviii.  19:  ''Go 
ye  "  etc.,  be  a  late  gh)ss  it  must  have  appeared  because 
the  Twelve  did  go  to  the  Gentiles.  These  things 
and  the  unanimous  testimony  of  men,  from  the  Apos- 
tles on,  all  show  that  the  claim  of  Gentile  cliurches  to 
build  upon  Apostolic  teaching  was  not  groundless.' 
Yet  Harnack  thinks  Apostolic  authority  for  Church 
teachings  is  a  fiction  of  the  Gnostic  controversy,  in- 
vented because  the  authority  of  eye-witnesses  was 
needed    against    Montanistic   and    other    fanaticism, 

1).  By  means  of  Jewish  converts  the  Apostolic  influence  and 
authority  would  pass  to  the  Gentiles;  for  most,  if  not  all,  the 
churches  gathered  in  New  Testament  times  had  a  smaller  or 
larger  Jewish  element  in  them,  and  these  Hebrew  brethren 
would  naturally  form  the  religious  and  especially  the  moral 
standard  for  the  congregation,  while  the  whole  Jewish  Christian 
Church,  despite  its  narrowness,  for  a  considerable  time  must 
have  instructed  Gentile  believers  in  both  the  doctrines  of  Chris- 
tianity and  their  application  to  life.  Hence  Hegesi}>i)us,  a  Jewish 
Christian,  even  in  the  second  century,  regarded  the  doctrinal 
agreement  of  the  bishops  of  the  West  with  him  as  a  full  proof 
of  their  orthodoxy.  The  failure  of  Jewish  Christians  to  retain 
the  true  teachings  of  the  Apostles  is  no  valid  objection  to 
Apostolic  authority,  any  more  than  the  failure  of  so  many  to 
receive  the  gospel  from  Christ  Himself  can  be  urged  against 
His  authority. 

1  Cf.  Epp.  of  Peter,  Jude  and  James  to  Jewish  Christians 
in  the  Dispersion,  and  Justin, 2>ta/.  c.  47. 


120 


Ii\}undatio)ii  of  the  Siccue  Thcohxjy^ 


ii 


becuusc  tlio  work  and  toacLingsof  Paul  had  disappeared 
leaving  a  vacuum  which  must  he  filled  by  Apostolic 
authority,  because  Christ's  eschatolo^ical  words  meant 
the  Twelve  must  have  gone  to  the  Gentiles,  and  be- 
cause an  a[)ology  must  be  mad(^  to  the  lu^athen  for 
Christ's  conlininLr  His  labors  to  Palestine.  The  Gnos- 
tics,  we  are  told,  "  Hrst  forged  artificial  chains  of  tra- 
dition and  the  Church  followed  them  in  this."  His 
chief  j)roof  is  the  fact  that  Marcion,  in  departing  from 
current Chuich  t<'achings,  rejectc'd  on  dogmatic  grounds 
the  claims  of  the  orthodox  to  represent  the  Apostles. 
Such  an  undertaking  Harnack  thinks  impossible',  had 
reliable  traditions  of  the  twelve  Apostles  and  their 
teachings  been  really  extant  and  operative  in  wide 
circles.  Ililgenfeld  well  replies:  "Wonderful!  Be- 
cause Marcion  re'jected  primitive  Christianity  no  reli- 
able tradition  of   it  existed  any  longer." '     The  fact 

1  He  sayn  [Zeitschri/t,  1894,  I  1):  "It  was  not  agrinst  an 
a  priori  constructed  Christianity  i.  ''  Marcion  fought,  but 
against  a  Christianity  that  actually  spran^  ,m  the  first  Apos- 
tles, and  he  did  so  by  placing  himself  cxclusu  'v  upon  the  side 
of  Paul,  and  even  going  beyond  him.  His  attempt  would  be 
incomprehensible,  his  success  and  the  manner  of  his  polemic 
against  him  would  only  then  be  unthinkable,  had  he  fought 
against  a  merely  manufactured  Christ  ia:uty  ascribed  to  primi- 
tive Apostles,  and  against  a  Jewlnh  tilivistianity  already  re- 
tired from  the  stage  of  history"  (S.  .,rr.  The  admission  of  a 
moderate  influence  to  Jewish  Chrisliunity  still  in  the  time  of 
Marcion,  as  advocated  by  the  later  school  of  Baur,  is  also  being 
recognized  by  some  of  the  followers  of  Ritschl.  (Cf.  Loofs,  in 
the  second  edition  of  his  Dof/menyeschichte,  and  in  his  section 
on  "Kirchengeschichte"  in  the  Volume  on  German  Universities 
(l)p.  197-208),  prepared  for  the  Columbian  Exposition  in  Chicago, 
cf.  Nippold  I.  249).  Ritschl,  as  is  well  known,  dated  the  over- 
throw of  Jewish  Christianity  from  the  fall  of  Bar-Cochba,  in 


m ! 


is  1 11 


an 
jut 

JOS- 

<icle 
be 
fmic 
ight 
imi- 
rc- 
)f  a 
of 
ing 
in 
ion 
ies 
go. 
er- 
in 


Z(fid  in   Coiijlict  f/'lf/i   Jlilliii'isu}.  Vn 

thnt  Mjircion  first  cliallongod  Church  tradition  r.nd  at 
tlie  samo  time  chalh'iiged  all  tlie  Aposth's  hut  Paul, 
proves  the  very  opposite  of  Ilarnack's  contention.  It 
shows  that  cuiT'nt  Ciiristiauity,  in  fact  as  well  as  in 
name,  built  upon  the  Apostles;  so  that  to  get  rid  of 
what  lie  thought  Jewish  teachings,  Marcion  had  to  re- 
ject both  the  Church  and  the  Twelve.*  Of  course  this 
claim  to  have  received  fundamental  Christianity  from 

A.  D.  135;  but  tho  widespread  controversy  V)et\veen  the  Paulino 
and  Jewish  Christians — in  .Palestine,  Antioch,  Galatia— could 
hardly  be  forgotten  so  soon.  The  appearance  of  anti-l'auliiieteach- 
crH  like  Cerinthus  in  Asia  Minor,  the  fact  that  Ciiiustioisni  laised 
a  hitter  controversy  by  setting  the  God  of  the  GoNpd  above  tho 
God  of  the  Law,  the  Clementine  litcrtitiire,  the  '•  Preaching  of 
Peter,"  and  references  in  Justin  (cf.  /-'A// xlvii.)  support  tho  view 
that  the  knowledge  of  the  Twelve  was  still  fresh  in  the  time  of 
Marcion.  The  novelty  in  the  position  of  Maicion  was  really 
that  he  first  tried  to  be  a  Christian,  and  yet  reject  the  Divine 
Christ  as  taught  by  the  Twelve  Apostles.  Justin  says  the  fol- 
lowers of  Marcion  "have  no  proof  of  what  they  say  "  (I  Aft. 
Iviii.);  that  is  transmitted  Christianity  was  against  tiicni.  IIo 
did  not  dare  to  appeal  to  Apostolic  tradition  in  support  of  his 
docetic  Jesus,  for  the  historic  Jesus  was  not  his  Jesus;  n(>ither 
did  he  dare  to  resort,  like  other  Gnostics  to  secret  tradition:  there 
was  nothing  for  him  to  do  but  begin  anew,  drop  historical  Chris- 
tianity, and  construct  a  gospel  for  himself.  Yet  even  here  he 
could  find  no  material  save  that  offered  in  the  de.-ipised  Clun-ch 
tradition;  he  could  only  slightly  alter  it  to  serve  his  purposes 
(cf.  Zahn,  N.  K.  Ztft.  1891,  II.  5).  Meybooni  thinks  that,  the 
Gnostic  movement  under  Marcion  was  of  little  importance 
{Marcion  en  de  JIarcioneten,  Leiden,  1888). 

1  Justin  says  the  Gnostics  claimed  Apostolic  origin,  but  de- 
clares that  Marcion  had  no  proof  for  his  teachings.  They  were 
contrary  to  all  traditional  life  and  doctrine.  They  were  also 
contrary  to  the  Christian  Scriptures;  for  Justin  further  says  that 
true  Christian   teachings  must   be  learned  from  "reading  the 


122 


Foundations  of  the  Nicene  Theology^ 


the  Apostles  cannot  be  allowed  to  cover  later  teachings, 
which,  though  referred  in  a  general  way  to  Apostles, 
plainly  contradict  the  writings  of  the  New  Testament.* 
(3)  This  Rule  of  Faith  did  not  claim  to  be  an  official, 
literal  production  of  the  Apostles,  but  rather  a  brief 
summary  of  the  gospel  as  heard  from  their  lips  at  bap- 
tism, and  binding  because  true  and  from  Him  who  is 
the  truth.  It  appears  in  various  forms  in  Irenaeus, 
(I.  9,  4;  III.  4,  1,  2),  Tertullian  {De  Praes.  xiii)  and 
others ;  neither  does  the  same  writer  give  it  always  the 
same  way.  It  belonged  to  the  custom  of  the  "  churches 
of  God"  of  which  Paul  speaks  (I  Cor.  xi.  16).  Tertul- 
lian says  it  "was  taught  by  Christ"  (t5.  ix.):  it  con- 
teachings  of  Christ"  (II  Ap.  iii).  This  is  also  the  position  of 
Aristides,  who  lifteen  years  before  the  death  of  Polycarp,  refer- 
red the  Roman  Emperor  to  the  Christian  writings  as  the  source 
of  their  doctrines  (cf.  his  Apology, cc.  ii.  ;  xvii.). 

1  The  Didache  was  not  written  by  the  Apostles,  but  its  title, 
"The  Teaching  of  the  Twelve  Apostles,"  shows  that  on  the 
threshold  of  the  second  century  the  churches  already  claimed  to 
build  upon  the  foundation  of  the  Apostles  in  the  exclusive  sense. 
The  so-called  "Apostoli*^  Canons"  of  the  third  century,  and  the 
"Apostolic  Constitutions"  of  the  fourth,  only  show  how 
the  early  idea  of  the  authority  of  the  Twelve  was  sought 
for  vai'ious  ecclesiastical  regulations,  but  do  not  overthrow 
the  proof  for  a  legitimate  recognition  of  the  Apostolic  origin 
of  the  Church  from  the  first.  There  is  a  legend  that  the 
Twelve  divided  th"!  world  among  them;  but  we  find  no  trace  of 
separate  mission  territory,  beyond  Paul  going  to  the  Gentiles 
and  Peter  laboring  chiefly  among  Jews.  All  the  Apostles  were 
for  all  the  CI  urch.  Irenaeus,  who  knew  Polycarp,  says  he  was 
taught  not  by  John  only,  but  by  the  Apostles  (III.  3,  4),  and  was 
for  years  in  intercourse  with  them  (cf.  Zahn,  Forschung.  zur 
G.  d.  iVl  T.  Kanonsy  IV.  S.  275,  who  thinks  the  time  referred 
to  was  about  A.  D.  69 — 85) 


I 


Laid  in  Conflict  with  Hellenism. 


123 


irow 
figin 

the 
36  of 
Itiles 

ere 

I  was 

I  was 

\zur 

rred 


tained  "what  the  Church  received  from  the  Apostles, 
the  Apostles  from  Christ,  Christ  from  God'' (xxi.). 
What  differed  from  it  was  false  because  "  contrary  to 
the  truth  of  the  Churches,  and  Apostles  of  Christ  and 
God."  It  was  older  than  heresy,*  contained  the  truth 
which  the  Gnostics  sought  after,  and  must  be  obeyed 
because  it  teaches  what  the  Scriptures  teach  (^De  Praes. 
xiv\,  xix.,  xxxviii).  Irenaeus  speaks  of  its  anti- 
quity, "  from  the  Apostles  and  their  disciples  "  (II- 9, 
1;  1. 10,  2;  III. 3,  1,);  its  universality  (1 10, 1);  its  use 
at  baptism  (1.9,  4);  its  unity;  and  sums  it  up  essen- 
tially as  we  have  it  in  the  Apostles'  Creed  (1. 10,  1). 
Harnack  says  this  "Rule  of  Truth"  saved  Christianity 
from  utter  dissolution  (1.262);  for  it  was  a  test  in  op- 
position to  the  Gnostic  Rule  of  Faith,  as  well  as  a 
barrier  to  the  errors  which  clothed  themselves  in  alle- 
gorical expositions  of  Scripture.  It  was  defended  then 
as  we  defend  Scriptural  Creeds  now,  but  with  closer 
reference  to  the  Apostles  who  had  just  passed  away. 
Before  the  Gnostic  controversy  it  was  a  creed  of  de- 
votion ;  now  it  became  a  test  of  doctrine. 

The  other  historical  avenue  to  Apostolic  teachings 
left  open  and  clear  by  the  anti-Gnostic  theolugiaus 
was  that  of  the  JNew  Testament  as  Word  of  God.  We 
have  seen  already  Iionv  Jesus  put  His  own  word  side 
by  side  with  that  of  the  Old  Testament;  and  h(v.v  lie 
gave  and  the  Apostles  accepted  the  same  absolute  re- 
ligious authority  (cf.  II  Thess.  ii.  15 ;  II  Cor.  ii.  9).  Now 
when  we  enter  the  post- Apostolic  Church  we  find  these 
lorty  ."•  .ma   all  recognized.     The  Second  Epistle  of 

1  Hence  the  Gnostics  revised  it  for  thoir  purposes.  Cf. 
Miiller,  Kirchengeschichte.       Freiburg,  1892,  Bfl.  I.  S.  74. 


/! 


■t'i'  \i« 


ill 


;  f 


124 


FoundatioriH  of  the  Nicene  Theoloaij^ 


Peter  spoke  of  Paul's  Epistles  as  "  Scriptures."  Bar- 
nabas calls  the  Gospel  of  Matthew  "  Scripture."  (iv. ; 
xiv).  Polycarp  quotes  Ephesians  as  in  the  Sacred 
Scripture  (xii.  1).  Ignatius  appeals  to  the  "  Gospel" 
as  the  Christian  archives  (^Pliil.  viii.  2;  Smijr.  vii,  2). 
The  words  of  the  Apostles  were  absolute  authority  for 
these  holy  men  (cf.  Zahn,  I,  S.  802  f.).  They  re- 
nounced all  claim  to  similar  dignity,*  and  repeatedly 
declared  the  Twelve  were  Christ's  unique  ambassa- 
dors, specially  inspired  by  the  Holy  Ghost,^  equal  to 
the  Old  Testament  prophets,''  and  sent  forth  to  evan- 
gelize the  world.*  They  were  related  to  Christ  as 
Christ  to  the  Father. 

The  Apologists  speak  in  the  same  way,  only  now 
the  written  word  of  the  Apostles  is  taking  the  place 
of  their  oral  Gospel.^  But  the  authority  is  unques- 
tioned."    It  is  very  significant  that  not  a  word  of  hesi- 

1  Cf.  Clement  R.  v..  vi.;  Ignatius,  Rom.  iv. 

2  Clement,  ii.,  xliv.,  xlv. 

3  Hernias,  Sim.  ix,  15,  25;  Ignatius,  Mag.  xiii;  Phil.  ix. 
*  Ilermas,  ih.,  Barnabas,  viii. 

6  Cf.  Justin,  I  Ajwl.  39,  07;  Died.  c.  119. 

«  Zahn  tinils  (I,  430)  that  before  Marcion,  A.  D.  140,  there 
was  "an  iron  collectiou,"  consisting  of  the  four  Gospels,  Acts, 
and  thirteen  Epistles  of  Paul,  read  everywhere  in  the  Church  as 
its  New  Testament.  Church  teachers  of  the  second  century 
"express  without  hesitation  and  without  exception  their  con- 
viction, that  the  New  Testament  had  from  the  earliest  times  of 
the  Church  performed  the  same  service,  which  it  did  in  their 
time"  (I,  433).  The  test  of  New  Testament  books  was  both 
Apostolic  tradition  of  the  churches  and  agreement  with  the 
known  words  of  Christ  and  the  Apostles.  Of  what  kind  the 
New  Testament  must  be  the  Church  was  fully  agreed;  the  only 
question  was  as  to  the  extent  of  the  writings  which  fulftUcd 


Laid  in  Conflict  with  IleUeni-sm. 


125 


tation  is  heard  respecting  this  transfer  of  authority 
from  the  spoken  to  the  written  New  Testament.  As 
soon  as  possible  Apostolic  writings  were  read  in 
churches.  From  Clement  of  Rome,  A.  D.  95  on  (c. 
47,  1),  we  find  this  usage  fast  becoming  universal.  It 
had  begun  incidentally  in  Apostolic  times  (I  Thess.  v. 
27;  Rev.  i.  3).  The  fulfillment  of  Old  Testament 
prophecy  in  Christ  and  the  gospel  made  the  Apostolic 
writings  at  once  appear  as  an  inspired  continuation  of 
the  ancient  Scriptures,  They  are  parts  of  the  same 
sphere  of  Revelation;  the  one  demanded  the  other. 
This  is  a  leading  thought  of  all  early  Fathers  (cf. 
Thomasius,  D.  G.  2  Ed.,Erlangen,  1886,  I.  \rS).  Of 
course  the  New  Testament  writings  were  not  all  found 
at   once  in  any  one  place;    but  what  Ignatius  calls 


Canonical  rcquiromenta.  Surely  also  some  weight  should  be 
given  to  the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Si)irit  in  the  collection  of  the 
New  Testament,  a  book  which  has  ever  been  owned  by  t}>nt 
Divine  Teacher.  As  soon  as  known  it  became  both  sun  and 
sliield  of  the  Church.  Irenaeus  tills  three  of  his  live  books 
agaiivt  the  Gnostics  with  extracts  from  the  Old  and  New  Tcsta- 
meni- ;  expounding  the  latter  especially  and  much  the  oftenest. 
Ha'  i  ;icK  argues  that  the  Gnostics  iirst  gave  Apostolic  tradition 
'.M  V  lUiiar  character  as  Rule  of  Faith,  and,  proceeding  from 
that.  .;;i\.  tlie  Apostolic  writings  such  authority  as  drove  the 
Chui'ci  o  -'aim  them  all  for  herself  as  Canonical.  But  seri- 
ous dinicultios  lie  in  the  way  of  such  an  assumption:  (1)  l{e\- 
erence  for  Scripture,  devotion  to  the  Old  Testament  Canon  and 
appeals  to  Apostolic  writings  and  teachings  jteculiarly  marked 
the  Church  before  Gnosticism  could  intiueuce  her  views.  The 
Apostolic  Fathers  show  this;  so  docs  the  Didar/ie.  ('J)  There 
is  no  hint  in  orthodox  or  Gnostic  writings  that  the  Church  fol- 
io ,ied  the  Gnostics  in  appealing  to  Apostolic  written  authority. 
'y]  irly  Gnostics,  such  as  Basilidos,  a]»pealed  to  secret  tnidi- 
tioni'rom  the  Apostles;  but  tlie  Church  (cf.  Tertullian)  answered 


126 


Foundations  of  the  Nicene  Theology^ 


"  the  Gospel,"  and  a  collection  of  Paul's  Epi8tle8  ap- 
pear in  the  first  quarter  of  the  second  century ;  and,  in 
the  last  quarter,  the  New  Testament  essentially  as 
known  to  us,  was  openly  appealed  to  as  supreme 
authority  in  Gaul,  North  Africa,  Rome,  Alexandria 
and  Asia  Minor  (cf.Zahn,  1.430;  Irenaeus,1.8  and  often ; 
Tertullian,  ^cZ.  Prax.xx.;  Theophilus,  ii.  23;  iii.  12). 
Such  perfect  agreement  everywhere  in  the  Church  so 
early  (180)  cannot  have  been  produced  by  a  visit  of 

that  her  appeal  had  ■  ~  ^  f^en  open  and  known  to  all.  It  was 
the  constant  appeal  oi  .  liurch  to  open,  constant  connection 
with  the  Apostles  that  le.^  the  Gnostics  to  seek  to  get  round 
Christian  tradition  by  an  appeal  to  a  secret  doctrine  of  Apostolic 
men.  Yet  when  it  suited  their  purpose  they  rejected  Apostolic 
authority.  Cerinthus  and  others  disowned  Paul  (Eusebius, 
H.  E.  ix,  29);  while  Marcion  followed  none  but  Paul.  The 
appeal  to  Apostles,  therefore,  was  very  arbitrary.  (3)  We  hear 
of  Gnostics  using  a  grea<^  variety  of  writings,  which  shows 
that  their  idea  of  a  Canon  was  very  different  from  that  of  the 
Church.  Basilides  "  dared  to  write  a  Gospel  and  call  it  by  his 
own  name"  (cf.  Oi'igen,  Com.  on  Luke,  iv,  p.  87;  Ed.  Lom- 
matzsch).  Their  Gospels  were  many  and  extravagant  in  charac- 
ter (cf.  Eusebius,  iii,  25;  and  Nbldeehen  and  De  Boor,  Die 
Abfossmigszeit  der  Schr(ftenTerhillk(ns,Lei\)zig,  1888,  S.  169). 
(4)  Yet  the  Gospels  which  the  Gnostics  regarded  as  the  sources 
of  Christianity  were  just  those  which  the  Church  ever  held  as 
valid.  Basilides  claimed  to  get  his  gospel  from  Matthew  and 
Peter  (Mark,  cf.  Clement  Alex.  St)'.,  vii,  17);  Marcion  built 
upon  our  Gospel  of  Luke;  while  Valentine  followed  the  Gosjiel 
of  John.  The  anti-Gnostic  Fathers  appeal  only  to  our  New 
Testament  to  convince  Gnostics  (cf.  Tertullian ,  7>tf  Praes. 
xxxviii).  (5)  Zahn  shows  that  it  is  very  probable  that 
Paul's  Epistles  were  collected  in  the  Church  at  least  twenty-five 
years  before  (A.  D.  117)  Marcion  began  to  form  his  Canon  (cf. 
also  Sanday,  Inspiration.,  London,  1893,  p.  3G4).  Ignatius' 
reference  to  *'  the  gospel  "  may  mean  a  similar  collection. 


Laid  in  Conflict  with  Hellenism. 


127 


Polycarp  to  Anicetus  of  Rome  (154)  or  by  any  meet- 
ing of  Greek,  Latin  and  Syrian  bishops.  It  must  rest 
upon  usage  extending  into  Apostolic  days.  And  this 
usage  rested  upon  the  ideas  of  antiquity,  Apostolicity, 
and  Canonicity,  which  Church  Fathers  of  the  second 
century  "  without  hesitation  and  without  exception  " 
(Zahn,  1. 433)  ascribe  to  the  New  Testament.  They  all 
regarded  Apostolic  writings  as  on  a  level  with  the  Old 
Testament  Canon.*    They  claimed  that  their  submission 

(6)  It  would  be  very  unlikely  that  a  New  Testament  Canon 
should  arise  in  a  day,  much  more  that  in  the  midst  of  contro- 
versy with  Gnostics  the  Church  should  go  over  to  the  ground  of 
the  enemy  and  borrow  the  theory  of  Apostolic  writings.  Gnos- 
ticism and  Montanism  may  have  hastened  the  collection  of  New 
Testament  books;  but  its  sudden  formation  Zahn  calls  "a  mod- 
ern myth"  (lu/noii.  I,  Iff.).  Both  Montanists  and  Gnostics  pre- 
supposed the  Apostolic  Scriptures  in  the  Church.  TertuUian's 
rule  of  "the  lateness  of  their  date,"  urged  against  all  heresies 
and  novelties  applies  also  to  the  Canon  of  the  New  Testament 
(cf.  De  Praes.  xxxi,  xxiv;  Adv.  Ifermog,  i.). 

1  When  the  New  Testament  Canon  arose  there  was  already 
ar  Old  Testament  recognized  as  Scriptures  in  the  Church,  so 
that  the  idea  of  a  Canon  was  perfectly  familiar  from  the  begin- 
ning. The  only  question,  then,  would  be  tchat  books  might  be 
put  into  the  New  Canon  (cf.  Sanday,  Inspiration,  \).  5).  llar- 
nack  thinks  .Justin  (150)  had  no  New  Testament  Canon;  Irenaeus 
(180)  had;  therefore,  he  coneUidos,  it  arose  suddenly  in  the 
thirty  years  between  as  "one  of  a  series  of  deliberate  measures 
taken  by  the  allied  churches  of  Asia  Minor  and  Rome  to  check 
the  inroads  of  Gnosticism  or  Montanism"  (Sanday,  p.  1-'^). 
Sanday  holds  ITarnack  is  wrong  in  setting  a  gulf  between  the 
spoken  and  written  word.  No  such  gulf  exists.  "  It  assumes 
a  breach  of  continuity  where  there  is  no  breach  but  simply  the 
direct  and  inevitable  development  of  conditions  present  from 
the  first "  (p.  62).  .Justin  writing  to  Pagans  and  Jews  would 
not  naturally  appeal  to   Christian  books  as  authority.     There 


I 


m  I 


*  ! 


i 


;«'i 


Y 


128 


Foundations  of  the  Sicene  Theolog.j^ 


to  Apostolic  authority  was  continuous,  and,  like  the 
truth,  was  older  than  the  errors  of  heretics.  In  oppo- 
sition to  the  spurious  appeal  of  Gnostics  to  secret  con- 
nection with  Peter  and  Paul,  they  pointed  to  the  pub- 
lic unbroken  preaching  of  Apostolic  Christianity  by 
the  elders  and  bishops  of  the  Church.*  They  never 
referred  the  origin  of  the  New  Testament  Canon  to 

remains  very  little  literature  of  the  time  of  Justin;  but  because 
we  suddenly  find  traces  of  a  Canon  A.  D.  175,  it  does  not  fol- 
low that  its  origin  was  really  sudden  (p.  14).  It  could  not 
arise,  as  Ilarnack  thinks  he  discovers,  and  yet  Irenaeus  fail  to 
detect  its  origin. 

1  The  Acts  of  the  Apostles  lays  great  stress  upon  the  testi- 
mony of  "eye-witnesses"  to  the  facts  and  teachings  of  the 
gospel.  Peter  said:  "Of  these  men  who  have  companied  with 
us  all  the  time  that  the  Lord  Jesus  went  in  and  out  among  us, 
beginning  from  the  baptism  of  John,  unto  that  same  day  that 
he  was  taken  up  from  us,  must  one  be  ordained  to  be  a  witness 
with  us  of  the  resurrection"  (i.  21,  22).  The  Apostleship  Avas 
thus  to  establish  by  personal  testimony  first  of  all  the  resur- 
rection, and  with  that  the  ascensi'^n,  the  wonderful  baptism  of 
Jesus,  and  every  event  and  word  of  the  Lord  that  fell  between 
these  points.  \\\  preaching  to  Cornelius  also  Peter  said:  "We 
are  witnesses  of  all  thinc:s  which  he  did  in  the  land  of  the  Jews 
and  in  Jerusalem;  whom  they  slew  and  hanged  on  a  tree:  Ilim 
God  raised  up  the  third  day,  and  showed  openly;  not  to  all  the 
people,  but  unto  witnesses  chosen  before  of  God,  even  to  us, 
who  did  eat  and  drink  with  Ilim  after  He  rose  from  the  dead. 
And  He  commanded  us  to  preach  unto  the  people,  and  to  testify 
that  it  is  He  which  was  ordained  of  God  to  be  the  Judge  of  the 
quick  and  the  dead  "  (x.  39).  Here  in  most  striking  words  the 
Apostles  are  presented  as  otiicial  witnesses  to  the  resurrection, 
to  the  Last  Judgment,  and  to  all  the  miraculous  life  and  teach- 
ings of  Jesus.  If  the  Acts  were  written  at  the  beginning  of 
the  second  century,  it  would  make  this  appeal  to  eye-witnesses 
and  Apostolic  authority  all  the  more  emphatic  and  significant, 


Laid  in  Conflict  tvith  IleUenism. 


120 


the  origin  of  the  early  Catholic  Church;  for  they 
knew  no  such  change  in  the  Church  as  would  produce 
"a  new  Bible"  (Ilarnaclv,  1.277).  They  showed  that 
the  New  Testament  could  not  have  been  collected  late 
in  the  second  century,  or  it  would  show  marks  of  re- 
daction and  corruption ,  *  such  as  they  charged  upon 
the  Gnostics.  Irenaeus  and  others  admit  that  a  flood 
of  Apocrypha,  chiefly  heretical,  set    the    Church  to 


w8  showing  that  the  historical  position  of  Pau]  was  clearly  ap- 
prehended bv  the  post-Apostolic  Church.  In  the  second  cen- 
tury, as  in  our  own  day,  desperate  attempts  were  made  to 
loosen  the  ties  that  hound  Christianity  to  historical  facts. 
Whether  it  be  the  allegorical  methods  of  the  Gnostics  or  the 
"religious  value"  methods  of  the  school  of  Ritschl,  the  move- 
ment was  very  much  the  same.  Facts  were  thrust  aside  for 
ideas,  in  the  one  case  speculative,  in  the  other  case  ethical  or  re- 
ligious. History  becomes  a  parable.  The  reality  of  the  idea 
had  no  vital  connectiori  with  the  reality  of  the  event  from 
which  it  was  symbolically  or  subjectively  deduced.  Both 
schools  of  critics  hold  that  ethics,  religion  must  become  inde- 
pendent  of  the  historical  basis  of  Christianity.  And  both 
schools  of  critics  must  fail  to  give  historical  continuity  to  their 
views,  because  they  reject  the  real  historical  foundation  of  their 
faith.  Zahn  writes  {Der  Geschichtsschreiher  nnd  seiii  ^Stoff,  in 
Ztft.f.  k.  Wiss.  u.  K.  Lehen,  1884,  II.  xi.):  "Christianity  is 
a  complex  of  believed,  experienced,  and  hoped-for  facts;  and 
all  Christian  theology  is  only  substantiating,  explaining  and 
presenting  these  facts."  I'he  oldest  records  of  Christiajiity 
present  a  gospel  of  teaching,  of  doctrine,  of  events  bringing 
salvation,  which  form  the  marrow  of  our  faith, and  the  removal  of 
which  leaves  our  belief  but  a  skeleton  of  articulated  ideas.  The 
history  of  the  Church  shows  the  impossibility  of  a  Christianity 
which  does  not  include  its  fundamental  facts  with  their  ob- 
jective, i-eal  value  in  them. 

1  Cf.    Irenaeus,    IV.    33,  8;    TertuUian,  iJe  Frae.s 
Zahn,1.440. 


130 


li'oiuidatlonii  of  the  JVicene  27ieoIo(/(/, 


work  more  than  before  to  decide  the  exact  limits  of 
New  Testament  writings.  They  battled  for  the  Old 
Testament  against  the  Gnostics,  and  luQd  that  such 
men  could  not  and  did  not  know  the  Apostles  or  have 
any  true  claim  upon  New  Testament  teachings.  They 
everywhere  ridiculed  the  idea  that  the  Church  bor- 
rowed her  theory  of  Ajjostolic  and  New  Testament 
authority  from  Gnostics  as  a  means  of  defense  in  con- 
troversy; the  reverse  they  declared  was  the  true  rela- 
tion.' There  was  no  need  to  invent  a  New  Testament 
Canon,  for,  as  Harnack  shows.  Gnosticism  made  ship- 
wreck not  upon  it,  but  upon  the  Old  Testament,  the 
doctrine  of  free  will  and  eschatology.  These  Fathers, 
especially  Tertullian,  appealed  to  the  written  records 
also  the  recollections  of  the  oldest  churches,  as  proof 


ii  i: 


1  Von  der  Goltz  says  (p.  149)  that  the  ouly  dogmatic  trace 
in  Ignatius  which  betrays  the  second  century  is  the  way  in 
which  "he  values  the  Apostles  and  their  injunctions,  and  looks 
with  rev  rential  devotion  up  to  them."  Elsewhere  we  are  in- 
formed that  Ignatius  "stands  not  behind  the  time  of  the 
Apostles  in  his  assurance  that  he  possessed  the  Holy  Ghost  and 
spoke  in  His  name."  If  these  things  are  so,  then  Ignatius  was 
fidly  convinced  by  the  Holy  Ghost  that  the  Holy  Ghost  had 
given  the  Twelve  jieculiar,  unique  authority,  shared  by  none  of 
their  successoi's. 

It  was  just  because  the  living  word,  the  Apostolic  tradition, 
was  so  prominent  in  the  primitive  Church  that  no  need  of  a  New 
Testament  was  felt,  and  a  Canon  not  needed.  It  was  Gnostic 
heretics,  who  broke  with  this  traditional  word,  that  first  ap- 
pealed systematically  to  Christian  writings,  and  quoted  largely 
from  the  New  Testament.  The  Church  did  not  need  to  quote 
from  them,  for  her  living  teachers  could  be  appealed  to.  The 
u.se  of  spurious  New  Testament  writings  by  heretics  especially 
led  to  a  New  Testament  Canon.  It  was  a  question  of  history, 
not  of  dogma  (cf.   Watkins,  p.  14Gf.). 


:il;i 


Laid  in  Conflict  with  Ilellenimi. 


KU 


that  Apostolic  writings  were  supreme  authority 
from  the  beginning.  They  allowed  no  post- Apostolic 
prophets,  as  the  Ritschl  men  do,  to  detract  from  the 
honor  paid  the  Apostles  and  their  writings;  even 
Montanism  did  not  set  aside  but  fulfilled  Apostolic 
teachings.'  Zahn  accordingly  asserts  that  all  these 
secon*'  century  Fathers  were  convinced  "that  the 
New  Testament  had  from  the  earliest  times  of  the 
Church  performed  the  same  service  which  it  did  in 
their  time."^  Harnack,  however,  questions  this.  He 
admits  that  Apostolic  authority  was  held  in  the 
Church  from  the  closing  years  of  the  first  century 
on,  that  is  long  before  the  Gnostic  controversy  arose. 
But,  he  says,  that  Apostolic  authority  was  not  then 
put  upon  a  New  Testament  Canon  so  as  to  make  it 
equal  to  the  Old  Testament.  This  technical  and 
artificial  transfer  of  Apostolic  authority  to  the  col- 
lection of  writings  in  the  New  Testament  came,  he 
holds,  from  the  Gnostics  and  has  revolutionized 
Christianity.^  It  is  a  product  of  the  Gnostic  and 
Montanist  controversies. 

In  view  of  what  we  have  just  said,  such  a  theory 
seems  to  stand  the  early  Church  on  its  head.     The 

1  Cf.  Voigt.  Eine  Verschollene  UrkxinOe  des  antimont. 
Kampfes,  1891.     In  Theol.  JahresbericJit,  xi.  S.  140. 

2  Kano7ilAZZ.  The  reception  of  the  Epistles  of  Barnabas, 
of  Clement  of  Rome,  and  the  Shepherd  of  Ilcmas  in  some 
places  very  early  as  Scripture,  shows  also  how  Apostolicity  was 
the  test  of  Canonicity;  for  it  is  almost  certain  that  it  was  the 
identification  of  their  authors  with  the  Barnabas,  Clement  and 
Hermas  mentioned  in  the  New  Testament  (Acts  iv.  36;  Rom. 
xvi.  14;  Phil.  iv.  3)  as  friends  of  the  Apostles  that  gave  these 
writings  such  honor  at  first  in  the  Church. 

3  Das  N.  Test,  urn  das  Jahr  200,  Freiburg,  1889,  S.  112. 


FT 


i 


li ' 


!'?;  'i 


132 


foundations  of  the  JVicene  Theology^ 


following  additional  remarks,  however,  may  be  made. 
And,  first  of  all,  Harnack's  own  proof  of  Canonicity, 
viz.,  treating  the  Gospels  and  Apostolic  Epistles  as  on  a 
level  with  the  Old  Testament,  is  just  what  we  meet  with 
in  all  post- Apostolic  writers;*  second,  the  question  of 
intensive  Canonicity  must  not  be  confounded  with  that 
of  extensive  Canonicity,  for  New  Testament  Avritings 
were  recognized  as  Scripture  long  before  the  extent 
of  the  Canon  was  settled;  third,  the  theory  of  Har- 
nack,  that  the  sacredness  of  Christian  writings  before 
A.  D.  180  was  of  a  general  charismatic,  "enthusiastic" 
sort,  and  not  that  of  special  inspiration,  as  held  after- 
ward, is  contradicted  by  the  great  current  of  early 
testimony;  fourth,  Harnack  thinks  it  only  "highly 
probable" — his  followers  think  it  certain  (cf.  Mc- 
Giffert,  1.  c.) — that  the  Gnostics  originated  the  idea 
of  a  New  Testament  Canon;  but  even  if  they  did,  it 
is  plain  such  an  idea  came  not  from  pagan  philosophy, 
but  from  the  Christian  Church,  hence  the  perfect 
agreement  of  the  orthodox  with  them  on  this  point 
from  the  beginning;  and  fifth,  the  process  of  what 
may  be  called  this  technical  Canon  formation  can  be 
traced  back  beyond  the  Gnostic  struggle  in  which  it 
is  said  to  have  been  born.  Justin  says  Marcion  by 
cutting  up  the  Gospels  "mutilated  the  Scripture."^ 
Irenaeus,  Polycarp  and  others  lived  right  through 
the  times  of  Marcion  when  this  Canon  transformation 
must  have  taken  place ;  yet  less  than  twenty  years 
after  Marcion  invented  the   New  Testament  Canon 


1  See  my  article,  The  Apost.  Fathers  and  N'.  Test.  Jievela- 
tion.     In  Preshy.  and  Ref.  Jieview.     July,  1892. 

s  I  Ajyol.    xxvii.  cf.   Sanday,  Inspiration,    Bampton    Lec- 
tures for  1893,  p.  364. 


"^ 


Laid  in  Conflict  with  Hellenism. 


133 


on  this  theory,  Irenaeus  declares  the  Four  Gospels 
were  accepted  by  the  whole  Church,  while  Paul's 
Epistles,  Acts  and  Revelation  were  everywhere  used 
in  public  worship  (III.  1).*  It  is  simply  impossible 
to  believe  what  Irenaeus  tells  us,  if  this  new  hypothe- 
sis is  true.''  We  conclude,  then,  that  with  all  their 
imperfections,  those  early  missionaries,  and  teachers, 
and  bishops  were  men  of  God ;  their  testimony  and 
theirdoctrine  respecting  the  subjects  here  touched  upon 
are  essentially  true;  and  we  with  them  across  the 
ages  may  profess  our  belief  in  One  Holy  Catholic  and 
Apostolic  Church. 


Ir.l  I 


IMf 


,■■1 
■  d^ 

:,  ^;! 

i%  * 


*'1| 


v:i 


*  The  recognition  of  Paul's  Epistles  from  the  very  first,  and 
the  appeal  to  him  by  Ignatius  and  others  shows  he  v/as  recog- 
nized as  one  of  the  Twelve,  taking  apparently  the  place  of 
Judas. 

'  Cf.  also  Zahn,  Einige  Bemerkungen  zu  A.  Hamack^a 
Prilfung  der  Gesch.  d.  N.  Test.  Kanom.  Leipzig,  1889, 
S.  27f. 


'  I' 


m 


ill 

m 
'41 

ill 

!' 
'1 


m 


m 


:3l 


LECTURE  III. 


^mkipmixd  of  iijz  IDocfrinc  of  <§c  9ii>in«  €§rbf  upoi?  <§c 

(Sroun^  of  l§c  ^v^zi\<m  ^raJhion,  ufic  of  t§c  ©fj  f  c^la- 

itwnt,  contdclTooh^  (Srwfe  l§ou3§f,  appeal  to  l§c  cof£(>d* 

ii>  IScTQ)  f  <5«iamenl,  atj&  oppofjilion  io  jl^cw^j. 


It 


186 


«£it 


.ilJil 


'!.»! 


1 


liPVI 


: 


11;  < 


'4: 


'''I  if 


ooi  SmKovovi  Xpt6rot  flcotT. 


Ignatius.  Ad  Smyr.  x. 


<'  Quum  enim  esset  unlcus  Dei  filius,non  gratia,  sed  natura, 
ut  esset  etiam  plenus  gratia,  f actus  est  et  hominis  filius. " 

Augustine,  Enchiridion,  c.  xxxv. 


Tti  dpxccta  eOr  xparetrao. 


Nicene  Synod.     Can.  vi. 


"Across  the  Night  of  Paganism,  Philosophy  flitted  on,  like 
the  Lanthorn-fly  of  the  Tropics,  a  Light  to  itself,  and  an  Orna- 
ment, but  alas!  no  more  tlian  an  ornament,  of  the  surrounding 
Darkness."  Coleridge,  Aids  to  Beflection.    ApL.  iv. 


186 


LECTURE  III. 

Development  of  the  doctrine  of  the  divij,  e  ohrist 
UPON  the  ground  of  the  christian  tradition, 

UBE  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT,  CONTACT  WITH  GREEK 
THOUGHT,  APPEAL  TO  THE  COLLECTED  NEW  TESTA- 
MENT, AND  OPPOSITION  TO  HERESY. 

There  is  nothing  more  wor'^erful  than  that  Chris- 
tianity, the  religion  of  humanity,  should  have  its 
source  in  the  narrow  exclusive  religion  of  Israel.  It 
is  the  maivelous  Jewish  legend  to  which  Paul  refers, 
turned  into  history;  for  here  the  cliff  which  poured 
forth  water  in  the  desert  for  Israel,  has  been  broken 
off  from  the  mother  mountain  and  turned  into  the 
spiritual  Rock  of  the  Divine  Christ,  from  which  flow 
streams  of  living  water  to  all  nations.  The  history 
and  the  hopes  of  both  Jews  and  Gentiles  looked 
toward  such  a  Brotherhood  of  man  in  the  service  of 
God;  but  they  also  spoke  of  the  "  birth  pangs"  of  the 
New  Age,  and  of  the  collapse  of  nationa  as  landmarks 
on  the  way  to  the  Messianic  Kingdom  and  the  Repub- 
lic of  God.  The  Church  must  now  experieu  o  what 
was  true  in  these  things.  The  sword  that  p  oiced  the 
soul  of  the  Virgin  Motlier  must  also  pierce  the  heart 
of  the  followers  of  Christ,  that  the  thoughts  of  their 
new  life  might  be  revealed  to  many  (Luke  ii.  35). 
The  Jews'  religion  centered  in  Monotheism ;  the  high- 
est philosophy  rested    also    in  one   Supreme  Being. 

137 


1/1 


if 


•'if^i 


i 


138 


Dev€lo2?'nient  of  Christology, 


m> 


But  the  first  Christians  went  out  preaching  Jesus 
Christ  and  Him  crucified,  to  the  Jews  a  stumbling 
block  and  to  the  Greeks  foolishness.  Thomas  called 
Him,  "My  Lord  and  my  God";  the  devotion  and  in- 
struction of  the  Church  alike  exalted  Christ  to  be 
head  over  all  things,  the  ever  present  Lord  of  His 
people.  Here  then  was  set  for  the  early  Christians  an 
inevitable  problem.  Thomasius  says:  "The  object 
toward  which  the  dogmatic  activity  of  the  Church 
first  turned  was  none  other  and  could  be  none  other, 
than  the  center  of  the  Christian  faith  and  of  all 
Christian  doctrines:  Christ  the  God-Man."* 

But  such  a  Christo- centric  faith  was  full  of  ques- 
tionings. How  can  we  believe  in  God  and  believe  also  in 
Christ?  He  was  in  the  midst  of  two  or  three  disciples 
making  them  a  Church;  did  that  mean  that  he  was  om- 
nipresent end  omniscient?  He  was  at  the  right  hand  of 
God.  He  was  also  with  His  peoj^le  to  the  end  of  the 
world:  how  could  these  things  be?  The  new  in  Chris- 
tianity is  the  Divine  Christ,  taking  the  place  next  God. 
The  mystery  of  godliness  was  this  Incarnate  One;  hence 
the  fundamental  problem  pressing  for  solution  was 
that  of  the  Son  of  God  and  His  relation  to  His  Father 
in  heaven.  How  could  Christians  believe  in  the 
absolute,  eternal  Jehovah,  and  also  accept  what 
seemed  to  be  a  second  God,  Jesus  Christ?  The  reply 
to  these  questions  is  found  in  the  historic  development 
of  Christology  till  finally  formulated  in  theNicene  the- 
ology. In  the  period  before  the  council  of  NicfBa, 
chief  attention  was  given  to  the  relation  of  Christ  to 
the  Father,  or  Christology  within  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity;    the    post-Nicene  controversy  took  up  the 

»  Doymenyeschichte,  Ed.  2.  1886.     Erlangen,  I.  S.  165. 


m 


•  'I 


by  Tradition^  Bible,  Philoso2)7iy,  Heresy. 


139 


:il:l 


the- 

tto 

Ithe 
the 


mutual  relations  of  the  divine  and  human  natures  of 
the  Person  of  Christ  Himself. 

We  have  observed  that  both  Jewish  and  Gentile 
thought  looked  forward  to  some  golden  age  when 
a  Messiah  or  a  Son  of  the  Gods  would  bless  the  earth. 
This  same  thought  also  felt  after  Him  as  med- 
iator between  the  far-off  God  and  the  world  and 
man.  Jewish  theology  spoke  of  the  Angel  of  the 
Covenant,  the  Divine  Wisdom,  the  Holy  Spirit,  and 
the  Memra  or  Word  as  ministers  of  God.  Jesus  cor- 
rected and  approved  of  this  teaching,  turning  it 
toward  Himself  and  His  mission.  In  like  manner  the 
Greek  philosophers,  or,  as  we  would  call  tliem  rather, 
theologians,  spoke  of  middle  beings,called  ideas  by  the 
Platonists,  and  ^oyoi  or  reasons  by  the  Stoics,who  went 
forth  from  God  to  turn  Chaos  into  Cosmos,  and  con- 
nect the  Supreme  Mind  with  the  world  of  matter. 
According  as  these  emanations  were  regarded  as  one 
with  God  or  as  identified  with  matter,  they  were 
spoken  of  as  divine  attributes  or  as  dist'  ict  entities  or 
personalities.  The  coming  forth  of  those  nit^diators 
was  to  help  solve  a  twofold  problem — first  to  relate 
God  to  the  world  as  its  Former  or  Creator,  and 
second  to  explain  the  moral  evil  in  the  universe,  to 
justify  the  ways  of  God  to  man.  The  Jews,  as  we 
have  seen,  made  the  Word  of  Jehovah  an  agent  in 
creation,  and  ascribed  evil  to  the  devil,  acting  be- 
tween the  free-will  of  God  and  the  free-will  of  man. 
The  Greeks  held  to  the  eternity  of  matter,  and  as- 
cribed its  shaping  to  divine  forces,  while  evil  was  re- 
ferred largely  to  resistance  of  matter,  to  fate,  and 
only  partly  to  man's  free  agency.  Judaism,  however, 
always    exalted    Monotheism;   but    Hellenism    ever 


'■i-<  f 


ill 


140 


Development  of  Christology^ 


drifted  toward  Dualism.  We  have  seen  how  the  Gnos- 
tics sought  to  solve  the  problem  by  setting  up  two  gods, 
the  one  good,  the  other  evil,  the  latter  of  whom  made 
the  world  and  is  to  blame  for  its  defects.  Back  of  all 
the  higher  teachings  of  both  Jews  and  Greeks  was  a  dark 
collection  of  superstitions,  belief  in  angels  and  d«^- 
mons,  magic  and  sorcery,  esoteric  Talmudism  and 
heathen  mysteries,  gods  and  demigods;  there  was 
scarcely  a  fact  or  a  doctrine  of  the  gospel  that  did  not 
seem  to  have  a  caricature  of  itself  in  perverted  Juda- 
ism or  in  the  mythology  of  paganism.  It  was  only  a 
question  of  time,  as  every  missionary  to  the  heathen 
well  knows,  when  the  life  and  thought  of  the  Church 
must  take  an  intelligent  attitude  toward  the  morals, 
the  religion  and  the  philosophy  of  Greece  and  Rome. 
The  preaching  of  one  eternal  God  meant  the  over- 
throw of  polytheism.  The  first  commandment  of  the 
Decalogue  was  a  blast  of  doom  against  many  gods; 
while  the  second  commandment  smote  the  foundations 
of  idolatry.  But  the  doctrine  of  one  God  was  largely 
taken  from  Israel.  The  first  Christians  treated  it,  as 
Ritschl  has  done,  as  a  fundamental  presupposition,  to 
be  everywhere  taken  for  granted  ;^  the  great  message 
given   them  to  deliver  was  salvation  through   Jesus 

1  Fairbairn  utters  a  warning  still  against  accepting  '*  the  In- 
carnation as  the  material  and  determinative  doctrine"  which  is 
to  test  all  Christian  truth.  "  It  is  a  derivative,  or  secondary 
and  determined  doctrine,"  he  says,  because  it  presupposes  the 
doctrines  of  God  and  creation.  It  is  "  determinative,"  also,  but 
because  it  is  "  the  supreme  act  of  revelation  "  {Place  of  C/irist 
in  Modern  Theolof/y,  p.  609).  Fairbairn  finds  the  real  source  of 
all  doctrine  and  doctrinal  tests  in  the  idea  of  God's  Fatherhood. 
His  theology  is  Patri-centric,  rather  than  Christo-ceutric. 


hy  Tradition^  Bihle^  Philosopliy^  Heresy. 


141 


le  In- 

Ich  is 

[clary 

the 

[,  but 

Vtrist 

3e  of 

lood. 


Christ.  It  was  Christ  everywhere  lifted  up  that  drew 
all  men  to  Him  in  faith  and  love ;  it  was,  however, 
this  same  exaltation  of  Christ  that  attracted  the  op- 
position of  both  Jews  and  Gentiles.  Here  then  was  a 
double  duty  which  the  Church  must  gradually  j^er- 
form ;  first  to  become  clearly  conscious  what  the  Son 
of  God  was  to  her,  and  then  to  show  to  the  wise  and 
the  scribe  of  this  world  that  all  wisdom,  the  Fiillness 
of  the  Godhead  had  bodily  appeared  in  Him. 

The  dawn  of  Christianity  shows  believers  clinging 
to  Christ  as  God.  Paul  says,  "if  any  man  be  in  Christ, 
he  is  a  new  creature"  (H  Cor.  v.  17).  Harnack 
gives  up  the  attempt  to  find  the  origin  of  such  ideas 
(I.  92).  But  that  only  means  that  our  historic 
sources  cannot  produce  a  merely  human  Christ. 
They  are  abundantly  ample,  however,  to  reveal  the 
Son  of  God  Incarnate.  A  belief  in  Him  was  part  of 
the  first  Christian  consciousness.  Schaff  well  remarks:^ 
•'Christ  was  helieved  to  be  divine,  and  adored  as 
divine,  before  he  was  clearly  taught  to  be  divine." 
More  and  more  as  the  brethren  recalled  the  words  of 
Jesus  and  prayed  over  them ;  more  and  more  as  the 
preaching  of  the  Apostles  was  impressed  upon  their 
hearts;  more  and  more  as  the  Old  Testament  Script- 
ures were  s*:arched  did  the  greatness  of  Christ  grow 
upon  the  early  Church.  There  was  a  growth,  at  least 
among  the  more  spiritual  and  more  intelligent  Chris- 
tians, toward  a  real  apprehension  of  the  Divine  Christ 
of  Paul's  writings,  of  the  Apocalypse,  and  of  the 
Fourth  Gospel,  before  Apologetic  considerations  led 
certain  teachers  to  present  this  same  Son   of   God  to 

1   Christ  and  Chriatianity.     New  York,  1885,  p.  51. 


a 


142 


Development  of  Christology, 


;  i 


cultured  lieatben  in  the  lofty  terms  of  Greek  phi- 
losophy.* 

The  Christology  of  the  Apostolic  Fathers  clearly 
shows  the  unquestionable  faith  in  the  Divinity  of  our 
Lord  which  passed  from  the  Apostolic  into  the  post- 
Apostolic  Church.  These  men  fairly  represent  the  be- 
lief of  all  Christians.  They  lived  East  and  West,  in 
Home,  Corinth,  Egypt,  Antioch,  Smyi'na.  They 
speak  for  every  class  of  believers.  Hermas  was  a 
])ropheticman  of  Italy,  Clement  wrote  a  Church  letter 
from  Rome,  the  author  of  II  Clement  was  a  lay 
preacher,  Ignatius  was  bishop,  and  indited  his  Epistles 
while  on  his  way  to  martyrdom  in  Rome,  Poly  carp  was 
a  pupil  of  John,  and  wrote  with  the  words  of  the  be- 
loved disciple  still  in  his  ears.  These  Fathers  lived 
just  half  way  between  the  Apostles,  from  whom  they 
received  orally  the  words  of  Christ  and  their  own  ex- 
planation of  them,  and  the  close  of  the  second  century, 

1  But  it  should  be  observed  at  the  outset  that  it  is  a  fal- 
lacy on  the  part  of  the  Ritschliau  school  to  ever  go  on  the 
assumption  that  the  theological  expression  of  Cliristian  faith, 
especially  by  the  Greek  Church,  inevitably  led  to  its  corruption. 
Von  der  Goltz  thinks  the  opposition  to  Docetism,  which  led 
Ignatius  to  state  his  belief  in  terras  of  the  intellect,  ot  neces- 
sity introduced  the  "Greek  view  of  the  nature  of  the  Divine 
and  human,  spiritual  and  carnal  also  into  Christology."  He 
finds  in  the  Christology  of  Irenaeus  "a  realistic-mystical 
apprehension  of  redemption  (S.  156);  the  simple  thoughts  of 
faith  (Herrniann's  term  for  Wert  hurt  heile)  in  general  are  devel- 
oped into  a  theology."  Now  such  assumptions  are  ground- 
less and  largely  in  conflict  with  admissions  of  these  critics  else- 
where recognizing  the  rights  of  theology.  Faith  expressed  in 
the  form  of  theology  may  be  no  more  unchristian  than  a  con- 
gregation of  Scotch  Covenanters,  at  the  cry  of  "the  dragoons," 
becoming  a  military  company,  ceased  to  be  saints  of  God. 


lon- 

» 


by  Tradition^  Bible,  Philow2)hij,  Heresy. 


143 


when  the  New  Testameut  books  Avere  collected,  and 
could  be  systematically  used  as  the  basis  of  Christian 
teachings  by  Irenaeus,  Tertullian  and  others.  Poly- 
carp  knew  John,  and  Irenaeus  knew  Poly  carp. 
The  doctrinal  position  which  they  oecui)y  re- 
flects the  transitional  period  in  which  they  lived. 
Their  Bible  was  the  Old  Testament.  They  were  well 
ac<|uainted  with  the  contents  of  the  Synoptist  Gospels. 
They  knew  some  of  the  Epistles.  But  their  knowledge 
was  not  exc.,ct;  it  came  chiefly  from  memory;  and 
their  doctrinal  views  were  of  a  popular,  edifying 
character,  rather  than  bearing  the  marks  of  reflection 
and  the  stamp  of  theological  precision.  AVhat,  now, 
did  they  think  of  Jesus  Christ  ? 

Clement  of  Home,  who  wrote  perhaps  before  John 
died,  says:  "  Our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  scepter  of  the 
majesty  of  God,  did  not  come  in  the  pomp  of  pride.  .  . 
as  the  Holy  Spirit  declared  of  Ilim,"  quoting  Is.  liii.  1 
(xvi.).  He  adds  Heb.  i.  5,  13,  "for  thus  it  is 
written.  .  .  But  concerning  His  Son,  the  Lord  spoke 
thus:  Thou  art  my  Son;  this  day  have  I  begotten 
Th3e  "  (xxxvi.).  He  describes  Christ  as  at  the  right 
hand  of  God,  above  all  angels;  Old  Testament  saints 
were  saved  through  Him  (1);  He  became  man  to  re- 
deem sinners.  His  gospel  ran:  "Let  all  the  Gentiles 
know  that  Thou  art  God  alone,  and  Jesus  Christ  is 
thy  Son,  and  we  are  thy  people "  (lix.).  In  the 
newly  discovered  portion  of  Clement's  Epistle,  he 
says:  "God,  the  Lord  Jesu.s  Chris^,  and  the  Holy 
Spirit  are  the  hope  of  the  elect,"  .vhere  the  Divine 
Redeemer  is  made  the  heart  of  the  Trinitarian  formula. 

Polycarp  quotes  I  John  iv.  3:  "For  whosoever 
does  not  confess  that  Jesus  Christ  has  come  in  the 


!l''i 


i  i 


I 


-     144 


Develoiyment  of  Cliridoloijij^ 


flesh,  is  antichrist"  (vii.).  He  prays,  saying:  "May 
the  God  and  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  Him- 
self, who  is  the  Son  of  God,  and  our  everlasting  High 
Priest,  l)nild  you  up  in  faith  and  truth  "  (xii.).  He 
knows  that  Christ  will  be  final  Judge  (vii).  He  prays 
to  Him,  praises  Him,  and  everywhere  presupposes 
His  Divinity. 

Barnabas  calls  Christ  "  Lord  of  the  whole  world, 
unto  whom  God  said  from  the  foundation  of  the  world : 
*  Let  us  make  man.'  "  He  was  the  "  uncreated  light, 
not  the  Son  of  a  man,  but  the  Son  of  God  manifest  in 
the  flesh"  (xii.).  "  Li  Him  are  all  things  and  unto 
Him."  He  is  Lord  of  both  the  material  and  the 
spiritual  creation  of  God.  Upon  this  identity  of  rule 
by  Christ,  Barnabas  bases  man's  redemption;  for 
only  the  Creator  could  save  a  soul  from  death.  Jesus 
gave  His  life  for  the  life  of  man.  He  became  incar- 
nate that  men  might  see  Him  and  so  be  saved ;  for  no 
mortal  can  behold  the  unveiled  glory  of  God  and  live 
(vii.).  The  redeemed  Cl'"rch  takes  the  place  of  cast- 
off  Israel  as  the  people  of  God.  Barnabas  teaches 
that  Christ  was  preexistent,  from  before  the  creation, 
became  man,  as  was  foretold  by  the  prophets,  and 
died  to  redeem  sinners.  He  is  Creator,  Providence, 
Saviour  and  flnal  Judge.  Here  we  have  both  cosmo- 
logical  and  soteriological  Christology  taught  by  a 
man  born  in  the  lifetime  of  the  Apostles.^ 

Ignatius,  head  of  the  important  church  in  Anti- 
och,  was  the  ablest  of  the  Apostolic  Fathers;  his 
writings  are  the  most  numerous;  and  his  utterances 
respecting  Christ  are  the  most  striking  and  satisfac- 

*  He  wrote  his  Epistle  between  A.  D.  96-125. 


a 


is 


hy  Tradition^  Bible,  Ph'ilosojih'jt  Jleretaj. 


145 


tory.  Writing  to  Polycarp,  he  calls  Jesus  "the 
Eternal,  Invisible,  Intangible,  Impassible  One,  Who 
for  our  sakes  became  visible,  was  handled  and  suf- 
fered "  (iii.)-  He  closes  his  letter  with:  "Farewell, 
always  in  our  God,  Jesus  Christ."  He  loves  to  call 
Christ  "  our  God,"  "my  God,"  ^  and  6  0e6i  absolutely 
(Smyr.  i.  1.).  He  was  "wiiih  the  Father  before  the 
ages"  (^Mag.  vi.).  To  reject  Him  was  blasphemy 
(Smyr.  vi.).  Ignatius  also  knows  all  the  details  of 
Christ's  earthly  life.  He  describes  the  Incarnation 
thus:  "Our  God,  Jesus  Christ,  was  according  to  the 
dispensation  of  God  conceived  in  the  womb  by  Mary, 
of  the  seed  of  David,  but  by  the  Holy  Ghost  "  {Ej^h. 
xviii.).  He  says  the  Virgin  mother,  Christ's  birth, 
and  His  saving  death  were  the  three  secrets  of  God 
finally  cried  aloud  to  destroy  the  works  of  the  devil 
{^Epli.  xix.).  This  passage,  containing  doctrines 
now  held  by  some  to  be  non-essential,  was  the  one 
most  quoted  from  Ignatius  by  subsequent  writers.^ 
Ignatius  opposed,  on  the  one  side,  Ebionitic  heresy, 
which  assailed  the  Divinity  of  Christ,  and,  on  the 
other,  Gnostic  speculation,  which  doubted  His  human- 
ity. Hence  his  repeated  assurances  chat  the  Lord 
was  truly  man  and  truly  God.  The  one  false  doc- 
trine which  he  saw  was  imperfect  views  of  the  great- 
.less  of  Jesus  Christ  {^Ej^h.  vi.)..  To  separate  the 
preexistent,  heavenly  Christ  from  the  historic  Jesus 
he  considered  a  dualism  fatal  to  Christianity.^  His 
point  of  view  for  truth  and  error,  personal  devotion 

1  Eph.  inscr. ;  xviii.  2 ;  and  lloni.  iii.  3. 

2  Cf.  Lightfoot.  ^t.  Ignatius,  1885,  in  loco. 
8  See  V.  d.  Goltz,  1.   c.  S.  103. 


':T 


\ 


i 


t' 


\\i 


i 


\ 


\ 


' 


I' '" 


Hi 
'ill 


146 


Development  of  Chriatology^ 


and  Church  discipline,  was  the  Divine  Christ,  Re- 
vealer  of  the  one  living  and  true  God.*  Ignatius 
knew  the  teachings  of  Paul,  for  he  names  hira;  but 
the  fountain-head  of  his  theology  was  the  Apostle 
John.  He  must  have  known  his  writings;^  Von der 
Goltz  thinks  not,  but  admits  that  he  was  under  "  the 
permanent  influence  of  church  circles  taught  from 
John "  (S.  130),  though  by  setting  aside  John's 
writings  he  cannot  tell  how  Ignatius  in  Antioch  could 
be  under  "permanent  influence"  of  the  Johannine 
churches  about  Smyrna. 

The  Pauline-Johannine  Christology  of  Ignatius 
made  prominent  four  doctrines,  among  others:  first, 
the  perfect  God-Man,  Jesus  Christ — Lightfoot  says 
Ignatius  held  "  substantially  the  same  views  as  the 
Nicene  Fathers  respecting  the  Person  of  Christ" 
{Apostolic  Fathers^  Pt.  II,  Vol.  II,  p.  93);  second, 
because  "the  Logos  of  God,"  the  Fullness  of  the 
Godhead  appeared  in  Christ,  He  was  the  center  and 
source  of  Redemption — the  end  of  Christianity  was 
"to  attain  to  Christ"  {Rom.  v.);  third,  the  Incarna- 
tion fulfilled  a  plan,  otuovo/xia  of  God  *  —  this  was  so 
important  that  Ignatius  promised  to  write  a  second 
essay  upon  it  {Epli.  xx.);  and  fourth,  salvation 
means  sharing  the  divine  life  of  Christ.  Boldly  does 
he  reproduce  John's  gospel:  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  and 
we  have  life  in  His  name  {ih.).    He  says  Christian 


il  il 


1  So  Rothe,  Anfiinge  dec  Christl.  Kirche,  1837.  I.  S.  YlSf. 
a  So  Baur,  Hilgenfeld,   Lipsius,  Holtzmann,    Zahn,  Light- 
foot.    Cf.  Watkins,  Bampton  Lectures,  1890,  p.  400. 

»  Cf.  Paul,  Eph.  i.  10;  I  Cor.  ix.   IV;  Ignatius,  Eph.  vi.  1; 
xviii.  2. 


!l» 


by  Tradition^  Bible,  Philosophy,  Heresy. 


14' 


hearts  were  "kindled  in  the  blood  of  God";*  and 
Christians  were  "imitators  of  the  suffering  of  my  God, 
Jesus  Christ."  Christ  dwells  in  believers  as  their 
God  in  His  temple  (^Eph.  xv.).  Where  Jesus  is, 
there  is  the  universal  Church  {Smyr.  viii.).  This 
immanence  of  God  and  Christ  in  the  Church  is  very 
prominent  in  Ignatius;  it  is  a  continuance  of  the  unity 
of  man  with  God,  which  appeared  in  Christ.''  In  the 
local  church  the  bishop  is  related  to  the  congregation 
as  Christ  to  the  universal  Church  ( Tral.  xi ;  Mag. 
i,  vi,  vii,  X.). 

1  Cf.  Tertullian,  ad  uxor.  ii.  3,  sanguine  Dei;  Acts  xx.  28; 
also  Lightfoot,  Apost.  leathers,  Pt.  II,  vol  II,  p.  29. 

2  Ignatius  calls  Christ  the  "Fullness  of  God  the  Father" 
{Eph.  i,,  repeating  Paul's  words  to  that  same  church.  Eph.  i.  23; 
iii.  19;  iv.  13;  Col.  i.  19.  Harnack  thinks  the  teaching  of 
Ephesians  is  Pauline;  cf.  his  essay  in  Ztft.f.  Th.  u.Kirche,  1891. 
H.  2).  He  speaks  of  Him  also  as  '*  Jesus  Christ,  the  God  who 
makes  us  wise"  {Eph.  viii.);  and  who  is  "God  in  Man."  He 
dares  to  speak  of  **  the  blood  of  God  "  (Eph.  i.).  But  so  does 
the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  (xx.  28).  And  so  does  Tertullian,  who 
was  clear-headed  and  not  *'  naive  "  as  Von  der  Goltz  calls  Igna- 
tius {ibid.).  Clement  of  Rome(ii.)  also  speaks  of  God  and 
continues:  «'  His  sufferings  were  before  your  eyes  "  (cf.  Light- 
foot's  notes  in  loco).  Ignatius  speaks  of  the  "Church  of 
God  the  Father  and  of  Jesus  Christ,"  just  as  Paul  writes 
Father  and  Son  in  his  prayer  (Philip,  i.  2).  In  fact  the  test  of 
sound  doctrine  for  Ignatius  was  always  what  men  held  about 
Christ.  He  says  {Eph.  vi.):  "Do  not  so  much  as  listen  lo 
any  one,  who  speaks  of  anything  except  concerning  Jesus  Christ 
in  truth"; and  adds:  "There  is  only  one  physician,  of  flesh  and 
spirit,  generate  and  ingenerate,  God  in  man,  true  life  in  death, 
Son  of  Mary  and  Son  of  God,  first  passible  and  then  impassible, 
Jesus  Christ  our  Lord"  (vii.).  The  Divine  Christ  raised  Himself 
from  the  dead  {Smjr.\\.),zxi^  to  reject  Him  was  blasphemy  {ib.\.). 


'■t 


% 


f 


.  !  i 


i 


fi 


II!      !iS: 


148 


Develojjment  of  Chrisiology^ 


Other  Apostolic  Fathers  take  similar  ground  with 
reference  to  Chrisu.  The  Didache^  though  a  little 
moral  treatise,  praises  the  Redeemer  as  "  the  God  of 
David"  (x.  6).  And  the  Homily  known  as  II 
Clement  opens  with  the  ringing  words:  "  Brethren,  we 

He  says  elsewhere,  referring  to  Christ's  two  natures:  <«He 
ate  and  drank  with  the  Apostles  in  the  flesh,  though  in  the 
Spirit  He  was  one  with  the  Father"  (*S'wyr.  iii.).  He  was  "eter- 
nal,  invisible,  intangible,  omniscient,  omnipresent,  impassible," 
yet  '*He  was  seen  ard  handled  and  suffered  for  our  sakes." 
What  can  be  said  of  Jetms  Christ  to  exalt  Him  as  God  incarnate 
that  is  not  said  already  by  Ignatius?  He  follows  Paul  in  calling 
Jesus  *'the  New  Man"  (cf.  I  Cor.  xv.  45),  and  in  speaking  of 
"one  faith  and  one  Jesus  Christ  "  as  the  way  of  life.  He  is  as 
Christo-centric  as  Paul  in  his  teachings;  but  while  Paul  must 
present  Jesus  as  both  Messiah  to  Israel  and  Son  of  God  to  the 
Gentiles,  Ignatius  was  led  to  present  chiefly  the  latter,  and  in 
doing  so  was  naturally  rather  Johannine  than  Pauline  in  his  pre- 
sentation. His  adversaries  the  Docetics  led  him  also  to  speak 
less  of  the  prefJxistence  of  Christ,  and  to  give  most  attention  to 
His  real  humanity.  And  the  fact  that  Ignatius  defends  espe- 
cially the  humanity  of  Christ  makes  his  references  to  the  Lord's 
Divinity  all  the  stronger,  as  presupposed,  assumed,  and  not  dis- 
puted in  the  churches  of  Rome,  Antioch,  Greece  and  Asia 
Minor.  He  opposes  the  errors  referred  to  in  the  Apocalypse, 
the  Pastoral  and  Catholic  Epistles,  and  the  £pistles  to  the 
Ephesians  and  Colossiane. 

Von  der  Goltz  feels  the  force  of  the  strong  statements  made 
by  Ignatius  about  the  Divinity  of  Christ,  and  seeks  to  weaken 
them,  (1)  by  saying  they  are  an  "apologetic"  against  the  Doce- 
tics; (2)  they  are  "  traditional  sayings  of  the  Church"  (S.  100); 
and  (3)  they  are  results  of  Greek  mysticism.  It  may  be  suflSi- 
cient  to  say  in  reply  that  the  defence  of  the  real  humanity  of 
Jesus  did  not  lead  necessarily  to  a  strong  aflirmation  of  His 
deity;  neither  does  it  weaken  the  doctrine  of  the  Divine  Christ  to 
say  Ignatius  accepted  it  from  the  Apostolic  Church  in  Antioch; 


iii 


'■•m 


tie 


by  Tradition^  Blble^  Philonophy^  Heresy, 


149 


ought  so  to  think  of  Jesus  Christ  as  of  God,  5is  of  the 
Judge  of  quick  and  dead;  and  we  ought  not  to  think 
small  things  about  our  salvation.  For  in  thinking 
small  things  about  Him,  we  also  hope  to  receive  small 
things  from  Him." 

vhile  the  argument  from  mysticism  is  crippled  by  the  ad- 
mission of  Von  der  Goltz,  that  similar  mysticism  is  found 
in  Paul  and  in  the  Fourth  Gospel  (S.  102).  When  the 
critics  have  thus  set  aside  the  anti-Docctic,  traditional,  and 
mystic  elements  in  Christ,  we  find  only  a  good  man  left. 
Vender  Goltz  says:  *'The  specific  in  the  Christology  of  Ignatius 
lies  precisely  in  his  seeking  after  the  Eternal,  the  Divine  in  time; 
in  the  historic  form  of  the  Lord  His  relation  to  the  Divine  Father 
is  the  chief  thing,  for  it  is  the  complete  bodily  and  spiritual 
oneness  with  God."  In  other  words,  this  post- Apostolic  man 
is  made  to  hold  a  Saviour  who  could  give  no  "  theoretical  knowl- 
edge of  God"  (S.  28),  except  that  lie  exists  and  may  be  appre- 
hended— Plato  could  tell  us  more  than  that, —  while  the  *'  bodily 
and  spiritual  oneness  with  God  "  which  Ignatius  saw  in  Christ 
be  saw  possible  for  every  Christian.  The  theology  of  Ritschl 
is  what  Ignatius  really  tried  to  teach  (S.  22);  but  was  not  quite 
successful.  "The  religious  Modalism,  which  sees  God  and 
Christ  in  One,  belongs  here,"  as  M'ell  as  in  the  Fourth  Gospel 
and  Epistles  to  Ephesians  .and  Colossians  by  Paul.  With  all 
dissection  of  Ignatius,  he  is  still  found  teaching  what  Paul  and 
John  taught  about  the  Divine  Christ  (S.  109).  He  had  made 
the  world  of  Johannine  ideas  his  own  (S.  130)  and  was  under 
their  "permanent  influence."  It  is  worthy  of  notice  also  that 
Von  der  Goltz  finds  this  Johannine  Christology  of  Ignatius 
much  higher  than  the  "common  Christian  views"  of  Clement 
and  Barnabas,  and  the  "superficial"  Adoption  ideas  of 
Ilermas. 

In  reference  to  this  whole  struggle  of  Ignatius  in  defence  of 
the  Divine  Christ  and  His  humanity  against  Docetics,  Foster 
remarks:  "If  now  the  plain  teaching  of  the  original  Christian- 
ity was  that  Christ  was   a  mere  man,  how  will  Ilarnack  explain 


150 


Development  of  Christology^ 


The  only  apparent  divergence  from  this  high 
Christology  appears  in  the  Shepherd  of  Hermas.  That 
allegory  presents  Christ  as  preexistent,  the  Son  of  God, 
who  created  and  sustains  all  things  (Sim.  ix.  14), 
whose  name  the  wicked  blaspheme,  but  the  Apostles 
proclaimed  to  the  Gentiles  [ih.  viii.  6).  Elsewhere, 
however  (Sim.  v.  2,  6),  Hermas  seems  to  identify  the 
preexistent  Son  of  God  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and 
speaks  of  the  bodily  nature  of  Christ  as  taken  to  dwell 
with  God  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  because  it  had  not  de- 
filed the  Spirit.  Upon  this  slender  foundation  the 
school  of  Ritschl  erects  what  it  calls  "Adoption 
Christology,"  transferring  the  term  from  the  Middle 
Ages  to  an  Ebionitic  type  of  heresy  in  the  second 
century,  and  calling  the  current  teachings  of  the 
Church  "  Pneumatic  Christology."*  The  one  view  re- 
gards Christ  as  a  man  raised  by  spirituid  merit  "  into 
the  Trinity  as  companion  of  the  Father  and  the  Spirit  " 

this  tempoiary  forgetting  of  the  humanity?  If  there  is  this  re- 
peated effort,  under  the  influence  of  a  '  fixed  method,'  derived 
from  /^lexandrian  apocalyptics,  or  even  from  the  Platonic  doc- 
trine of  '  ideas,'  to  ascend  from  the  phenomenal  to  the  explana- 
tory 'rea^'  which,  in  spite  oi  the  tendency  of  the  Church  to  re- 
verse the  logical  order,  is  always  displaying  itself  by  the  unwel- 
come persistence  oi'  an  idea  of  the  original,  simple  Christianity, 
even  down  to  the  time  of  Arias  (325),  how  is  it  that  in  Ignatius 
the  divine  is  first,  and  the  human  is  called  into  prominence  by  a 
definite  doctrinal  issue?  These  questions  we  deem  unanswer- 
able, and  they  display  the  first  element  of  the  historical  proof  of 
the  two  positions  which  we  think  overturn  Ilarnack's  theory, 
(1)  that  the  Christology  is  dynamic,  and  (2)  that  the  forces  de- 
veloping it  are  native  to  the  Church  and  to  original  Christian- 
ity."    {Blbliotheca  Sacra,  April,  1892.) 

1  Cf.  Ilarnack,  I3,    182;  Engelhardt,  I.e.  S.  425ff. 


In 


hy  Tradition^  Bible,  PhilosojyhiJ^  Heresy. 


151 


n 


re- 
el- 

ty, 

ins 
V  a 
er- 
fof 

'■>' 
do- 

an- 


(cf.  Link,  S.  35).  The  other,  according  to  tliis  school, 
considers  Christ  as  a,  heavenly  Leing,  who  came  down 
upon  Jesus,  and  then  retarnedto  heaven. 

But  such  a  description  seems  just  neither  to  Iler- 
mas  nor  to  the  Church.  Hennas  clearly  speaks  of  a 
Trinity  in  his  story  of  Lord,  Sou  and  Servant;  he  iden- 
tifies the  preexistent  Son  of  God  with  the  Incarnate 
Christ;  he  says  that  Christ  was  a  preexistent  Spirit,  but 
not  "the  Holy  Ghost."'  Hennas  knew  the  Trinitarian 
formula  of  baptism,  and  could  not  confound  Christ  and 
the  Holy  Spirit.  On  the  other  hand,  Ilarnack  says  that 
to  call  Jesus  "  a  mere  man,"  as  would  be  inn)lied  in 
this  adoption  of  Jesus  by  God,  always  shocked  early 
Christians.  Yet  he  and  Hatch  and  all  their  followers 
go  on  repeating  the  groundless  assumption  (cf.  Thovi'- 
asius  D.  G.  L  109)  that  Jesus  the  man.  raised  in  devo- 
tion to  the  place  of  God,  was  primitive  Christoloixy."^ 
This  right  view  they  think  was  held  by  Ebionites, 

1  Cf.  Seeberg,  1.  c.  S.  22,  and  Doruer,  Person  of  Chritit,  1. 
p.  130f. 

?  In  his  edition  of  the  Apostolic  Fathers  (Adnot.  in  Vis.  V,  2; 
Sim.  viii,  33),  Ilarnack  thought  the  Holy  Spirit  of  Hennas  iden- 
tical with  the  highest  archangel;  but  later  {Dof/me/i(/esc/iichte  I. 
135)  leaves  this  undecided,  and  identities  the  Holy  Spirit  with 
the  preexistent  Son  of  God,  whose  iiicarnatiGU  is  .Jesus. 
Schliemann,  Dorner,  Zahn,  Driill  defend  tlie  ortliodoxy  of 
Hennas,  while  Baur,  Schwegler,  Lipsius,  Nitzsch  and  Ilarnack 
think  Hernias  knew'  no  preexistent  Son  of  (iod  apart  from  the 
Spirit  (cf.  Link,  Christi  Person,  it.  Werk  int  H.  des  IIermu.s, 
Marburg,  1886,  S.  Iff.).  This  latter  view  regards  Christ  as  an 
inspired  man  raised  by  merit  to  be  Son  of  God  tlirough  the  in- 
dwelling of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Jesus  is  the  bodily  nature;  the 
Holy  Spirit  is  the  spiritual  nature:  is  there,  then,  add^d  the 
Divine  Logos?     Dorner,  Zahn  and  others  say.  Yes;  Link  says, 


HI 


Bl 


ti 


^U 


m '' 


!  ■   ■  " 


lit 

I'. 


152 


Development  of  Chrutolofjfj^ 


Hermas  alone  among  post-Aj^ostolic  men,  then  the 
Alogi,  the  dynamical  Monarchians,  and  Methodius  of 
Olympus,  who  ended  the  true  succession  fighting  the 
errors  of  Origen. 

But  leaving  these  so-called  Adoptionists,  who 
"never  played  a  role  in  the  Church"  (Sohm,  Eng.  Tr. 
p.  50),  we  must  estimate  briefly  "the  spiritual,"  the 
divine  Christology,  which  prevailed.  Harnack  admits 
that  "the  doctrine  of  the  existence  of  a  divine  Logos 
was  very  widespread  in  the  Church  of  post-Apostolic 
days"  (I.  187).  It  came  not  from  reflection,  but 
from  living  apprehension  of  the  historic  Christ. 
Ignatius  calls  Him  both  Logos  and  Son  of  God,  but 
always  means  the  one  great  God-Man,  of  whom  liis 
memory  and  heart  were  full.     Wendt  says  th.e  essen- 

No.  The  latter  Iiokls  that  Ilcrmas  did  not  go  beyond  this 
union  of  the  Holy  Spirit  or  Son  of  God  with  the  man  .Jesuy, 
leaving  a  dualism  unsolved  (S.  33).  In  that  ease,  there  was 
room  in  the  view  of  Hennas,  also,  for  the  Divine  Logos.  In 
fact  what  he  says  of  a  divine  S])irit  incarnate  in  Jesus  just  about 
describes  the  Divine  Logos  (as  "  door,"  "  Hrst-boru  of  all  crea- 
tion," coi){ieratiug  with  God  in  creation,  "a  foundation,"  "re- 
ceiving all  potter  from  the  Father"),  but  does  not  suit  the  per- 
son and  work  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  Logos  is  for  him  a 
spirit;  but  not  the  Holy  Ghost.  Seeberg  urges  (S.  22)  against 
the  "Adoption"  interpretation  of  Hernias,  that  Christ,  the  Son 
of  God,  is  [) resented  here  as  the  original  rock  from  which  the 
tower  of  the  Church  was  quarried,  just  as  much  as  the  new  door 
through  which  men  enter  that  tower.  He  was  preexistent  and 
far  above  all  angels  and  powers,  sustaining  and  ruling  the  uni- 
verse («SVw<.  ix.  14,  5),  and  not  a  man  exalted  to  be  God.  He 
was  a  Divine  Being  incarnate,  and  incarnate  to  redeem  men. 
The  Apostles  "preached  the  name  of  the  Son  of  God"  and 
"  fell  asleep  in  the  power  and  faith  of  the  Sou  of  God"  {Sini. 
ix.   IG);  as  the  martyrs  "  suffered  for  the  name  of  the  Sou  of 


hy  Tradition,  Bible ^  Philo'^ophy,  Heresy. 


153 


III 
ibout 
crea- 

' '  10- 

pcr- 
|im   a 
tainst 
Son 
h  the 
door 
and 
uni- 
Ile 
linen, 
and 
LS'//// . 
In  of 


titil  features  of  the  Logos  Christolog}'^  appear  in  most 
of  the  Apostolic  Fathers;  it  took  only  firmer  outline  in 
the  Apologists.^  We  cannot,  therefore,  stop  with  any 
" Heavenly  ISIan "  theory;  Ignatius  calls  Christ  the 
"  New  Man,"  but  never  dreams  that  that  fills  up  the 
measure  of  the  Divine  Redeemer.  Every  impulse  led 
to  the  highest  conception;  he  says  again:  "There  is 
noLuing  more  glorious  than  Jesus"  (Eph.  xvii.). 
Harnack  clearly  points  out  the  all-conquering  charac- 
ter of  this  divine  Christ.  He  says  that  a  study  of  the 
Old  Testament  must  lead  Christians  to  believe  in  "  a 
heavenly,  eternal,  spiritual  being  with  God  "  (I.  140). 
He  means  by  that  an  angel  or  spirit;  but  we  mean  by 
it  what  Thomas  and  the  post- Apostolic  Church  meant, 
"  my  Lord  and  my  God."  He  remarks  further  that 
the  best  informed  men,  such  as  Clement  of  Rome, 
Barnabas  and  Ignatius,  clung  to  the  "spiritual"  and 
rejected  the  "  Adoption  "  Christology.  And  the  rea- 
son, which  he  frankly  gives,  is  because  this  view  alone 

God)  {Ih.  ix,  28),  or  "  for  the  Name's  sake."  Worldly  livinj; 
meant  to  blaspheme  Christ  {Sim.  viii.  8).  Hernias  clearly 
teaches  the  Divine  Christ  incarnate,  even  if  his  views  as  to  the 
relation  of  the  preexistent  Son  of  God  to  the  Holy  Spirit  ai*e  not 
perfectly  plain.  In  spite  of  all  Harnack's  arguments  from 
Hernias  as  the  "only  work,"  which  "gives  clear  exi>ression  to 
the  Adoption  Christology"  (I.  191,  Eng.  Tr.),  Link  (1.  c),  and 
Weizsllcker  (Harnack,  ih.)  declare  his  Christology  to  he  directly 
"  pneumatic,"  i.  e.,  of  a  Divine  Being  incaniale,  and  oidy  inci- 
dentally "  Adoption,"  in  speaking  of  "Jesus  exalted  into  the 
Trinity"  (Link,  S.  35).  Harnack  himself  admits  that  these  two 
Christologios  came  very  close  together  in  the  view  of  Hernias, 
that  "  the  Spirit  which  appeared  in  Jesus  was  the  preexistent 
Son  of  Go<l"  (I.  137). 

1  Essay  on  Harnack's  D.  G.  S.  If). 


i  i'.i 


l::f 


'■tv. 


1 1;.:! 


■  t;i  ■   ■ 


I' 


I- 


11  -^  lii 


»i; 


154 


Develojyinent  of  Christohgy^ 


"  allowed  a  close  union  of  creation  and  redemption,  it 
alone  gave  the  proof  that  the  universe  and  religion 
rest  UDon  the  same  divine  foundation,  and  it  alone 
offered  room  to  add  speculation  about  the  Logos" 
(I.  141).  For  these  reasons  the  future  belonged  to 
the  doctrine  of  the  Divine  Christ.^ 

^he  absence  of  such  supports  let  adoption  views 
sink  into  oblivion;  for,  when  applied  to  the  world  and 
history,  they  landed  in  two  Gods,  one  eternal  and  one 
adopted.  These  views,  further,  he  assumes  us,  "showed 
themselves  defective  in  the  presence  of  all  reflection 
upon  the  relation  of  religion  to  the  universe,  to  human- 
ity and  to  history"  (I.  142).  And  then  he  proceeds 
to  tell  us  that  this  bankrupt  theory,  nottaught  in  Ajws- 
tolic  writings,  rejected  by  post- Apostolic  thinkers,  not 
found  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  killed  by  intelligent 
contact  with  the  world,  man  and  history,  w^as  actually 
thpt  which  "agreed  most  with  the  self-consciousness  of 
Jesus."  It  failed  because  it  "  was  not  able  to  assure 
the  Gentile  Christians  those  views  of  Cliristianity 
which  were  regarded  as  most  valuable."  S\irely  that 
is  a  most  lame  and  impotent  conclusion.  It  means  that 
Christ's  own  Christology  was  not  grasped  by  the  New 
Testament  Church ;  that  it  appeared  correctly  only  in 
a  handful  of  Christian  Jews^  in  the  mountains  of  Syria 
and  in  a  parable  of  Hermas  in  Rome;  that  it  never 

1  Hence Martensen  says  {Brleficechael.  II.  397)  truly  that  "a 
real  theology,  worthy  of  the  name,  canr.ot  be  built  up  without 
the  Trinity  and  ^^  ithout  a  Christolog)%  which  assures  the  meta- 
physical and  cosmio-ii  Hignificance  of  Christ." 

2  The  Ebioaites,  Cf.  Justin,  Dial,  xlvii;  and  Irenaeus, 
III.  21,  1;  Y.  1,  3. 


hy  Tradition^  Blhle^  Philosophy,  Heresy. 


155 


lOVlt 

keta- 


JUS, 


took  root  in  human  history;  and,  so  long  as  nations  of 
culture  exist,  apparently  never  can.' 

Von  der  Goitz,  in  his  valuable  monograph  on  Igna- 
tius, labors  hard  to  persuade  the  good  bishop  that  he 
does  not  mean  what  he  says  about  Christ.  Nine  times 
over  the  venerable  martyr  calls  Jesus  "our  God"; 
but  his  young  critic  finds  that  two  of  the  passages  can 
be  explained  suV)jectively,  and  then  says,"  in  the  seven 
others  it  may  1.,  understood  the  same  way"  (S. 
24).  That  is,  Jesus  was  divine  only  as  mediator  of 
redemption.  As  bringing  the  message  of  life.  He  had 
the  religious  value  of  God  to  Ignatius.  But  this 
Father  repeats  old  formulae,  "  dogmatic  Christologi- 
cal  formulae"  (S.  160).  What  of  these?  The 
answer  is  the  same:  they  come  from  the  worship  of  the 
"enthusiastic"  Apostolic  Church,  in  which  everything 
religious  was  "  somewhat  divine  "  and  Jesus  as  bearer 
of  salvation  from  God  especially  divine  {Eph.  xiv. 
1).     That  is,  Christ  was  God  in  worship,  but  not  in 

*  In  attempting  to  hold  that  Jesns  -was  only  a  mere  man 
chosen  by  God,  upon  whom  the  Christ-Sj)irit  came  at  baptism, 
Harnack  defends  Cerinthus  as  an  orthodox  primitive  Christian, 
with  whose  Christology  tradition  should  not  have  made  the  Apos- 
tle John  the  least  surprised  (/>o<7?«e«f7t.sv'A/c7/?t;,  I.  180).  He  rej)- 
resented  "the  oldest  Palestinian  tradition"  of  Christianity. 
But  we  are  not  told  how  this  Egyptian  .lew,  trained  in  the 
philosopliy  of  Philo.  got  possession  of  liis  oldest  tradition,  nor 
why  this  oldest  tradition  made  him  rejeet  Paul,  who  claimed  to 
agree  in  alldoctrir.es  with  the  Twelve.  'I'lie  truth  seems  to  be 
that  his  views  of  the  .Messiah  lieing  narrow,  .lewish,  and  de- 
fective, his  conception  of  Chrisiianity  as  the  universal  religion 
was  also  perverted  and  wrong.  He  couM  not  aece])t  the  Divine 
Christ  of  Paul;  and,  accordingly,  the  gospel  for  humanity 
preached  by  Paul  olTended  him. 


ill 


•\ ' 


li)6 


Development  of  Christohxjif^ 


tLeology;  faith  could  pray  to  Him,  hut  reason  must 
pronounce  Him  man  only.  Here  is  the  vicious  root  of 
the  Ritschl  theology  planted  in  the  post- Apostolic, 
Church.  Here  the  fatal  theory,  that  what  is  relig- 
iously true  to  the  heart  may  be  historically  or  theo- 
retically false  to  the  understanding,  is  brought  in  to 
cleave  Ignatius  the  Christian  and  Ignatius  the  theo- 
logian asunder. 

His  Christology  is  called  "naive  Modalism," 
that  is  a  simple  form  of  Monarchianism,  which  took 
scientific  shape  half  a  century  later;  though  else- 
where Von  der  Goltz  admits  that  Avhat  Ignatius  says 
of  Christ  expresses  "  clearly  both  His  distinction 
from  the  Father,  and  His  personal  preexistence, 
thus  excluding  every  stamp  of  Modalism "  (S. 
15).  All  that  he  says  about  the  Virgin  birth  of 
Christ,  His  preexistence.  His  Divine  Sonship,  His 
being  Logos  of  God,  His  transcendence,  came  from 
traditional  sayings  of  the  Church,  our  critic  assures  us, 
and  form  merely  the  fringe  of  the  teachings  of  Igna- 
tius. Rejecting  these,  the  follower  of  Ritschl  finds 
that  the  martyr  regarded  Christ  as  "  the  eternal,  the 
Divine  in  time."  All  that  he  learns  of  God  through 
Christ  is  that  He  exists  and  may  be  apprehended 
(S.  28).  He  does,  however,  speak  of  personrl  relations 
to  God,  which  Von  der  Goltz  at  once  brands  as  mysti- 
cism, though  he  admits  that  the  same  oneness  of  man 
with  God  is  taught  in  the  Johannine  writings.  Christ 
with  the  religious  value  of  God,  not  Christ  bringing 
us  to  God,  is  what  he  tries  to  find  as  the  Christology 
of  Ignatius. 

Two  points  especially  are  urged:  first,  that  this 
Father  sees  the  revelation  of  God  on  earth  especially 


l,<. 


hij  Tradition^  Bible,  Philosophy,  Heresy. 


1^ 


I  or 


lis 


ill  the  death  of  Christ  (S.  20),  hence  the  phrases 
"God  in  man,"'^  "true  life  in  death,"  "the  blood 
of  God,"  or  "  the  sufferings  of  God."  But  these  de- 
votional expressions  only  teach  that  the  love  of  God 
was  supremely  shown  in  the  death  of  Christ,  not  that 
the  love  of  God  there  revealed  was  all  of  God  that 
dwelt  in  Christ.  The  idea  of  Jehovah  revealed  in 
death  is  foreign  to  Old  Testament  and  early  Christian 
teachings.  God  was  the  living  One.  Ignatius'  favor- 
ite view  of  Clirist  as  giver  of  life  led  him  naturally  to 
speak  of  Ilis  purchasing  it  by  His  deatli.  And  a 
Greek,  vdio  was  ever  inclined  to  put  reality  into  ab- 
stract terms,  cannot,  in  the  absence  of  positive  proof, 
bo  reijfarded  as  thinkino;  that  Christ  had  the  reliixious 
l>ut  not  the   real  value    of  God. 

The  second  point  urged  is  that  as  Ignatius  regard- 
ed the  M'ork  of  Christ  as  th(^  creation  of  "  a  perfect 
man,"  so  he  considered  Christ's  oneness  with  God 
as  like  that  of  every  believer.  That  is,  it  was  ethical 
not  essential.  But  such  an  argument  from  analogy  has 
no  weight  against  the  positive  statements  of  Ignatius; 
and  if  it  were  valid  it  could  be  used  equally  well  against 
Paul  and  Athanasius,  both  of  whom  take  the  same  high 
ground  respecting  the  "  new  man  "  in  Jesus  Christ.* 

1  The  so-callod  Second  Epistle  of  ClemeTitalso  secTns  to  favor 
the  view  of  the  t"  Adoption "  Christoloi^y.  After  sayinu-: 
"Brethren,  ve  ought  so  to  think  of  .lesus  Clirist  as  of  (iod  ' 
(i.),  the  speaker  says  later  (ix.):  "If  Christ  our  Lord  who  saved 
us,  being  first  a  Spirit,  Ix'caiiu'  flesh  and  thus  called  us;  so  also 
shall  we  in  this  llesli  receive  llie  reward."  Again,  speaking 
(xiv.  2f.)  of  God  making  mini  male  and  female,  he  says,  "  the 
male  is  Christ,  the  female  is  tlie  Church."  "  The  living  CHiurch 
is  the  hody  of  Christ'';  then  he  adds,  "  for  though  our  Jesus  was 
spiritual,  yet  He  was  manifest  in  these  last  days   to  save  us." 


m 


% 


if  ■ 


W 


St 

ft*: 

,1?   :J 


158 


Development  of  ChrUtology^ 


The  Apostolic  Fathers  as  men  of  the  second  century 
speak  the  language  of  their  time;  but  they  express  in  it 
no  mean  measure  of  Christian  doctrine.  The  valley 
separating  them  from  the  New  Testament  Church  is  not 
so  broad  or  so  deep  as  many  writers  assume.  They  had 

We  neeJ  not  lay  stress  upon  the  fact  that  Codex  C.  reads  in 
ix.  Xoyoi  for  Jtvev/ia,  making  it  say,  "  being  at  first  the  Logos, 
He  became  flesh  " — though  this  difference  of  reading  in  our  two 
Greek  Mss.  of  Clenient  is  not  unimportant  —  but  may  notice 
that  ix.  1-5  containing  this  passage,  "  Christ  is  .  .  .  the 
first  Spirit,"  "  is  quoted  in  several  collections  of  Syriac  frag- 
ments immediately  after  the  opening  sentence  of  the  Epistle  " 
(Cureton,  in  llarnack's  Ap.  FF.,  iti  loco),  which  reads,  "we 
must  think  of  Jesus  Christ  as  of  God."  Whatever  was  said  of 
Christ  as  Spirit  included  the  view  that  He  was  Divine.  He  is 
not  spoken  of  here  as  the  Holy  Ghost;  but  as  a  great  spiritual 
Being,  who  became  incarnate.  The  words  used,  iyaysro  ddph 
echoing  the  Logos  teachings  of  John  i.  14,  show  that  the  writer 
had  New  Testament  teachings  in  mind,  including  the  incarna- 
tion of  the  Logos.  Clement  was  writing  in  o])position  to  here- 
tics who  denied  a  bodily  resurrection,  and  introduced  the  union 
of  Christ,  a  spiritual  being  with  a  human  body,  to  prove  that  the 
risen  body  of  believers  was  real,  though  joined  to  man's  im. 
mortal  spirit.  It  was  not  a  mere  spiritual  resurrection  any 
more  than  the  incarnation  was  merely  spiritual,  or  docetic. 
This  Apologetic  reference  to  Christ  as  Spirit  shows  that  His 
identification  with  the  Holy  Ghost  need  not  be  regarded  as  part 
of  the  theology  of  this  Homily.  In  the  last  passage,  both 
Christ  and  the  Church  are  called  "Spiritual,"  so  that  neither 
can  be  identified  with  the  Holy  Ghost;  the  Church  "  was  spirit- 
ual as  our  Jesus  also  was."  In  the  next  paragraph,  Christ  and 
the  Holy  Ghost  are  clearly  distinguished;  for  Clement  says 
(xiv.),  "the  Church  being  spiritual,  was  manifested  in  the 
flesh  of  Christ,  thus  signifying  to  us  that  if  any  of  us  keep  her 
in  the  flesh  and  do  not  corrupt  her,  he  shall  receive  her  again 
in  the  Holy  Spirit."  Then  he  falls  into  his  contrast  in  general 
of  flesh  and  spirit,  and  says  of  the  worldly  Christian  w  ho  serves 


m 


hy  lWiditio7i,  B'ihle^  Philosophy^  i    resy. 


159 


received  much.  The  OUT  Testament,  discourses  of 
Christ,  Gospel  history,  sacred  words  of  worship,  and  a 
substantial  body  of  teachings  passed  into  the  post- 
Apostolic  Church.  We  see  from  Ignatius,  strong 
Pauline,  and  especially  Johannine    currents  flowing 

the  flesh,  he  "  shall  not  partake  of  the  Spirit,  which  is  Christ." 
It  was  the  aim  of  practical  exhortation,  and  the  current  division 
of  spiritual  and  bodily  that  led  to  this  method  of  speaking  of 
Christ  also  as  Spirit.  The  opening  words  of  this  Homily  — 
"  We  ought  to  think  of  Jesus  Christ  as  of  God,  as  of  Judge  of 
the  quick  and  the  dead  " — seem  to  settle  the  doctrine  of  the 
Divinity  of  Christ  in  this  practical  discourse;  but  Ilarnack  thinks 
otherwise.  Instead  of  seeing  the  Divine  Christ  here  taken  for 
granted  as  a  fact  known  to  both  the  preacher  and  his  hearers, 
Harnack  sees  in  it  "  the  indirect  theolof/id  Christi,  which  we 
lind  unanimously  expressed  in  all  witnesses  of  the  earliest 
period  "  (I.  130f.),  growing  out  of  the  naive,  earlier  tradition 
which  called  Jesus,  "  Lord"  and  ''Son  of  God."  lie  finds 
here  a  transition  point  from  the  conception  of  the  man  Jesus  to 
that  of  the  Divine  Christ.  He  is  here  quasi  Divine,  thought 
of  as  //'God;  and  so  thought  of  because  the  Christian  "  salva- 
tion needed  a  great  Saviour,  one  really  a  God,  to  effect  it." 

To  such  a  view  of  the  man  Jesus  becoming  God  there  are 
many  objections.  (1)  First  of  all  this  Homily  moves  in  thought 
just  in  the  opposite  direction  —  it  makes  the  preexistent  Christ 
become  man  (xx.  7;  ix.  5;  xx.  .5);  (2)  it  speaks  of  the  Church 
as  also  preexistent,  hence,  Harnack  argues  that  Christ  also 
was  only  ideally  preexistent;  but  the  cases  are  not  parallel,  and 
Clement  argues  from  tlie  I'fxo'jnized  ccrtaiuti/  of  tfui  case  of 
CJirist  to  show  the  reality  of  that  of  the  Church;  (;5)  Harnack 
holds  that  because  tlie  Christians  expected  great  things  from 
Christ,  they,  therefore,  made  Him  Divine;  but  this  Homily 
argues  in  the  reverse  order;  it  says:  "  Think  of  Jesus  as  God," 
"  For  if  we  think  little  of  Him  we  shall  also  hope  to  obtain 
little  of  Ilim"(cf.  Foster,  Bibliotheca  Sacra,  April,  1892); 
(4)  Harnack  admits  that  this  Homily  everywhere  "  introduces, 
without   any  ai)parent  distinction,  now  God   Himself  and  now 


100 


Decelopment  of  Cliristolo(jij^ 


V  ■■> 


thr«)iigli  the  minds  of  teachers,  and  preparing  sturdy 
opposition  to  Gnosticism  and  other  attempts  to  per- 
vert the  gospel.  Especially  important  it  is  to  notice 
that,  before  the  conflict  with  Gnosticism  raised  the 
question  of  Christology  from  the  philosphical,  tran- 
scendental point  of  view  of  the  Absolute  God  and 
F'lther,  the  post- Apostolic  Church  had  shown  the 
loftiest  conception  of  the  Divine  Christ  from  the  his- 
toric point  of  view  of  Jesus,  the  Sou  of  God,  who  be- 
came man. 

But,  leaving  the  Apostolic  Fathers,  who  show  us 
the  apprehension  of  God  and  Jesus  Christ  with  which 
the  Gentile  Churches  began  the  conquest  of  the 
world,  we  come  to  the  Apologists,  who  introduce  us 
to  the  Logos  Christology,  and  mark  a  new  departure 
in  the  history  of  this  doctrine.  Be30ud  them  is  Iren- 
aeus,  the  first  great  anti- Gnostic  writer,  who  with  his 
Apostolic  Rule  of  Faith,  and  his  New  Testament, 
sets  forth  the  God-Man,  Jesus  Christ,  essentially  as  it 
has  been  done  by   all   theologians   until    our   day. 


i  ! 


ill;    . 


\ts 


Christ"  (I.  18G,  Engl.  Tr.),  and  only  escapes  the  conclusion 
that  Christ  is  divine  by  bringinn^  in  the  llitschlian  theory  "of 
the  value"  of  God,  a  theory  wliich  is  certainly  foreign  to  the 
current  thought  of  post-Apostolic  days;  (5)  if  the  re<iuirements 
of  salvation  made  Christ  (iod,  what  shall  we  say  of  the  state- 
ment, we  must  think  of  Ilim  as  "Judge  of  quick  and  dead?" 
Did  the  need  of  a  Divine  Saviour  make  the  creation  of  Christ 
as  Judge  also  necessary?  and  (G)  finally,  the  fact  that  Ilarnack 
appeals  to  the  death  of  Christ  as  a  ground  for  making  Ilira 
God  —  the  thought  of  a  dying  God  being  utterly  abhorrent  to 
primitive  Christians  —  and  drags  in  references  to  pagan  Emper- 
ors like  Domitiau  called  "  Domiuus  ac  DeuH"as  parallels, 
shows  how  impossible  it  is  to  find  "  Adoption  "  Christology  in 
early  Christianity. 


htj  Tradition,  I^ible,  I^hilofiophij,  lit nxij. 


161 


Hippolytus,  TertuUian,  the  Aloxaiulrijiu  Scliool,  nil 
follow  ill  the  steps  of  Irenaeus.  There  are  two  points 
at  which  theological  thought  may  leave  the  Apostolic 
Fathers  to  travel  toward  Irenaeus;  one  is  that  of  his- 
torical connection  through  Polycarp,  whom  Irenaeus 
knew  in  his  youth;  the  other  is  that  of  doctrinal 
succession,  and  leads  rather  through  the  rich  Jt)han- 
nine  reproductions  of  Ignatius  to  the  clearer  and 
larger  form  of  the  same  teachings  first  presented  again 
l)y  Irenaeus.  There  is  no  conflict  between  these  con- 
necting lines  for  they  were  both  in  ./l>edience  to  the  law 
of  the  Divine  Christ.  Polycarj)  urges  al)ove  all  to  fol- 
low the  Incarnate  Christ,  and  sees  all  error  summed  up 
in  Unitarianism,  in  denial  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in 
the  flesh;  while  Ignatius  is  Christo-centric  in  all  his 
teachings.  It  is  gratifying  to  see  Loofs  and  Von  der 
Goltz,  pupils  of  Ilarnack,  (Un'iate  from  liii  i  to  show 
how  directly  the  stream  of  Johannine  thought  flowed 
from  Ignatius  to  Irenaeus.  Especially  notewortliy  is 
it  to  see  the  rich,  varied,  perfectly  human,  perfectly 
divine  Christology  of  Ignatius  retaught  by  Irenaeus 
with  full  appeal  to  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and 
New  Testaments. 

But  a  generation  and  more  of  busy  men  had  been 
at  work  in  the  C'luirch  between  the  Apostolic  Fathers 
and  the  anti-Gnostic  theologians.  Some  fought  against 
paganism,  others  tried  to  make  peace  with  heathen 
culture.  We  have  here  the  Apologists  and  the  Gnostics, 
who  might  be  regarded  as  the  two  tlieological  high- 
ways by  which  post- Apostolic  thought  travelled  to 
Irenaeus  and  TertuUian.  Seeberii;  calls  the  Gnostics 
heathen  in  heart  and  Christian  in  head,  and  the  Apolo- 
gists Christian  in  heart  but  still  heathen  in  their  modes 


I  !;l| 


S'l 


fl 


U\2 


Development  of  Chriatoloiii/^ 


of  thought.  Wo  have  spolcon  already  of  the  Gnostics 
and  need  not  notice  tlieni  furtlier  liere.  Ilarnack 
tliinks  they  well-nigh  ruined  Christianity  ])y  "trans- 
forming the  gospel  into  a  doctrine,  into  an  absolute 
philosophy  of  religion"  (I.  IHO).  But  they  <lid  not 
do  it  directly;  they  rather  inoculated  the  Apologists 
and  later  theok)gians  with  the  virus  of  Hellenism; 
and  so  what  tin;  Church  cast  out  as  heresy,  when  pre- 
sented by  Hasilides  and  Valentine,  was  accepted  as 
orthodoxy  when  taught  by  Justin  and  Clement  of 
Alexandria.  This  was  especially  true  of  the  Logos 
Christology,  the  doctrine  of  the  Divine  Christ  pre- 
sented in  terms  of  philosophy  by  the  Apologists,  which 
the  school  of  Ritschl  declares  to  be  the  one  deadly 
dogma  at  the  heart  of  the  Nicene  theology,  and  the 
r(!moval  of  which  from  evangelical  religion  is  declared 
to  ))e  the  only  way  of  its  salvation.  Hence  the  study 
of  the  Christology  of  the  Apologists  should  let  us  far 
into  the  secret  of  this  "  secularization  "  of  Christianity 
which  Gnosticism  finally  produced. 

Now  it  is  evident  at  the  outset  that  Christian 
theology  is  one  thing  and  Apologetics  another.  We 
micrht  add  that  the  liitschlian  "  Doctrines  of  Faith  " 
are  still  a  third.  That  school  with  its  rejection  of 
natural  theology  really  makes  Apologetics  impossible, 
l)y  eliminating  the  things  held  in  common  by  Chris- 
tian and  non-Christian.  Hence  Kaftan  and  Herrmann 
must  and  do  on  principle  reject  most  of  the  arguments, 
methods  and  results  of  reason  and  history  applied  to 
prove  the  truth  of  Christianity.  But  of  course  the 
A[)ologists,  from  Aristides,  who  wrote  about  140,  to 
Tertullian,  who  lived  into  the  third  century  thor- 
oughly believed,  as  every  missionary  to  the  heathen 
from  Paul  to  Judson  has  believed,  that  witnesses   to 


hy  Tradition,  Bihh.,  PJiilonoplnj,  Ihnsy. 


\(\\\ 


faith  in  God,  virtue,  immortality — these  prolegomena 
to  Christianity  itself — can  be  found  in  human  nature 
and  pagan  beliefs.  The  truth  already  discovered  in 
Greek  an.d  Roman  thought  was  the  point  from  which 
aggressive  Christian  Apt)logetic8  set  out.  The  gospel 
fulfilled  vha^"  was  incomplete  in  Hellenism  as  wtdl  as 
what  was  lacking  in  Judaism.  The  Apologists  traced 
partial  knowledge  of  God  to  man's  original  couscious- 
ness  oi  a  Supreme  Being,*  to  the  special  working  of 
the  Xoyoi  anffjuariHoi,  ov  the  essential  Christ  in  the  world 
and  man,  and  to  the  Old  Testament  revelation  known 
long  in  Hebrew,  and  also  in  Greek.  They  found  this 
fundamental  law  of  all  paedagogics — to  proceed  from 
the  known  and  admitted  to  the  unknown  and 
questioned — illustrated  in  New  Testament  Apolo- 
getics; for  PauFs  address  on  Mar's  Hill,  and  the 
introduction  to  his  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  led  through 
philosophical  conceptions  of  God  and  the  testimony  of 
the  soul,  to  the  Divine  Christ  as  Lord  and  Redeemer, 
thus  clearly  blazing  the  way  for  Justin  Martyr, 
Theophilus,  and  all  their  successors. 

The  call  soon  became,  loud  for  such  defenders  of 
the  faith.  Attacks  of  Jews,  heretics,  and  especially 
learned  heathen,  not  only  drove  Christians  to  the  stake, 
but  demanded  an  intelligent  reason  for  the  faith  that 
was  in  them.  The  second  century,  and  still  more 
the  tliird,  was  a  time  of  religious  revival  and  growing 
moral  earnestness  throughout  heathenism  itself.  All 
sorts  of  ethical  questions  filled  the  air.  It  was  an 
age  of  "eclecticism  and  mysticism."^     All  paganism 

'   See  TertuUian,  Apol.  xix-xxi. 

2  Cf.  Aube,  Ilistoire  des  Persecutions.     Paris,   IS^l,  2  ed., 
T.  ii.  c.  ix. 


\w 


164 


Develoiy/nent  of  Chrhtology, 


ly.'i 


ij.'-  'b. 


V    ' 


had  become  believing  and  earnest  again.  Philosophy 
had  become  theology ;  and  the  wise  men  were  preachers 
of  ethics.  Christianity  was  a  new  and  powerful 
ferment  in  this  religious  evolution,  and  soon  became 
an  object  of  study  and  attack.  The  severe  and  subtle 
criticisms  of  men  like  Celsus,  Lucian  and  Cornelius 
Fronto,  were  already  on  the  lips  of  scoffers  in  the 
days  of  Aristides.  Justin  wrote  to  defend  himself 
from  the  assaults  of  philosophers.  Thus  about  the 
same  time  cultivated  heathen  thought  began  to  write 
out  theories  telling  why  Christianity  should  be  perse- 
cuted; and  educated  Christian  faith  began  to  give 
reasons  why  the  gospel  as  the  truth  of  God  should  not 
be  hindered.  Already  not  a  few  philosophers  had 
entered  the  Church — Aristides,  Justin,  Athenagoras, 
Tatian-  -and  the  nearest  duty  for  them  was  to  turn 
their  learning  to  the  defence  of  Christianity.  They 
would  show  in  the  court  <si  true  reason  and  history 
the  wr' ng  of  heathenism  and  the  right  of  the  gospel. 
They  would  refute  the  charges  of  paganism,  just  as 
Jewish  Apologists — Arib^obulus,  Philo,  Josephus^ — 
had  refuted  similar  charges  against  their  religion. 
And  they  would  employ  the  same  weapons — the 
ancient,  majestic,  prophetic  Old  Testament,^  and  the 
truth  found  ^n  nature  and  philosophy;  to  which  they 
would  add  a  defence  of  Jesus  Christ  and  the  gospel 
a^  fulfilling  all  the  truth  found  in  both  Judaism 
and  Hellenism. 

The  form  and  contents  of  these  Apologies  were 

^   See  his  ad.  Ajiionem,  where  the  same  charges  are  met  as 
the  early  Christian  Apologists  must  answer. 

2  Cf.  TortuUiau,  Apol.  c.  xviii. 


ill-  \'j.  I 


hy  Tradition^  BihUy  Phihsojyluj^  Heresy. 


165 


prescribed  by  the  opposition  which  called  them  forth;* 
hence  it  would  be  a  great  mistake  to  suppose  that  the 
theology  of  these  writings  represents  all  that  their 
authors  believed.  Paul's  sermon  in  Athens  gives  little 
idea  of  the  doctrinal  richness  of  his  Epistles.  Ter- 
tulli:  :i's  Apology  is  far  behind  his  other  writings  in 
theological  breadth.  Aristides,  in  his  new-found 
Apology,  says  distinctly  that  there  are  things  in  the 

1  Hence,  for  example,  Justin  in  his  Apology,  addressed  to 
the  Greeks,  presents  Christianity  as  a  ivno  and  true  philosophy, 
but  in  his  Dialogue  for  Jews  presents  it  rather  as  a  New  Law. 
In  his  Apologies  he  everywhere  has  his  heathen  readers  in 
mind;  hence  in  trying  to  show  them  how  to  approach  the 
Divinity  of  Christ,  he  does  not  hesitate  to  say:  "Even  if  the 
Son  of  God  called  Jesus  were  only  a  man  by  ordinary  gener- 
ation, yet  on  account  of  His  Avisdom,  lie  is  worthy  to  be  called 
the  Sou  of  God"  (xxii.).  But  this  is  an  argumentum  ad  hond- 
nem;  and  does  not  indicate  that  Justin  held  Adoption  or  ethical 
Christology. 

He  defends  Christianity  by  an  appeal  to  two  sources;  first, 
Christ's  own  teachings  and,  second,  the  propb'^cies  of  the  Old 
Testament  (I  Ap.  xxiii.).  But  he  soon  sees  that  Christ  as  the 
Divine  Word  also  spoke  through  the  Projdiets;  hence  l)e  reaches 
the  final  result  tbvt,  ..ii  Revelation  is  an  utterance  of  the  Divine 
Christ  (xxx-xxxvii.).  All  Scripture  is  the  expression  of  that 
Divine  Logo.,  who  became  incarnate  in  Jesus.  From  this 
point  of  view,  it  is  very  evident  how  soon  the  Old  Tcstument 
was  regarded  as  a  Christian  Bible,  and  its  teachings  recognized 
as  one  with  those  of  Jesus  and  the  New  Testanu'iit.  Such  a 
view  of  the  Old  Testamcut  made  thoattacksof  (inosticism  Jijioa 
the  Law  and  the  Prophets  ajipear  the  most  shocking  heresy  and 
blasphemy.  And,  back  of  tlie  Word  as  Revelation,  Justin  maw 
the  Word  active  in  Creation  (I  Ap.  xliii);  the  universe  was  the 
work  of  Christ,  i-'rom  this  point  of  view,  also,  the  Gnostic 
doctrine  of  a  Demiurge  was  regarded  as  utterly  anti-Christian. 

Beyond  this  skirmish  lino  of  Apologetics  he  held   the  more 


f 


1:^- 

•l:i: 


m 


li '; 


^1 


166 


Developuient  of  Christology, 


Christian  Scriptures,  which  cannot  be  set  forth  to 
outsiders  (xvii.  1).  Neither  are  the  teachings  pre- 
sented by  the  Apologists  regarded  as  the  most  cardinal, 
but  rather  as  those  which  would  naturally  lead  an  edu- 
cated Greek  to  favorably  consider  Christianity.  They 
present  the  Christian  conception  of  God,  virtue,  im- 
mortality, things  familiar  to  moral  philosophers,  and 
leave  Christ  and  things  peculiar  to  the  gospel  for  later 
study.^ 

This  IS  not  true,  howev^er,  of  all  these  writers; 
for  Justin  especially  felt  at  once  the  slings  and  arrows 
hurled  against  the  Divinity  of  Christ,  the  Resurrection, 
and  His  redemptive  work,  so  that  the  major  part  of 
his  great  Apology  is  given  to  a  defence  of  the  Incar- 
nate Son  of  God.  He  introduces  us  to  the  Loijos 
Christology,  and  marks  a  turning  point  in  the  course 
of  theological  thought.  It  is  the  beginning  of 
theological  science  in  the  Church,"  and  he  is  the  lirst 

positive  trutlis  of  Christianity.  In  a  fragment  of  a  lost  work 
of  Justin,  his  comments  upon  I  Cor.  xv.  50 — "Flesh  and  blood 
cannot  inherit  the  Kingdom  of  God,"  etc. — show  a  deeper  con- 
ception of  Christian  doctrine  than  appears  in  his  Apologies. 
Referring  the  teaching  to  Paul,  he  exi)ound8  it  to  mean  that 
"the  Kingdom  of  God  being  eternal  life  cannot  be  inherited 
by  the  body,  but  the  body  by  life,"  because  the  Kingdom  takes 
possession  of  the  flesh,  and  that  ir.  what  is  meant  by  death  being 
swallowed  up  in  victory  (cf ,  Zahi  in  Ztft.  f.  k,  Gesch.  viii. 
H.  I.). 

1  For  this  reason  Athenagoras,  Tatian  and  Theophilus  say 
little  of  Clirist,  but  dwell  upon  such  topics  as  the  true  God, 
creat-on,  free-will,  holy  living,  faith,  the  inspired  prophets  and 
the  Holy  Scriptures,  showing  the  vast  superiority  of  the  Chris- 
tian knowledge  of  those  things  dimly  seen  by  heathenism,  thus 
preparing  the  way  for  the  new  truth  revealed  by  the   Gospel. 

2  Cf.  Ritschl,  mntstehiing,  S.  o08. 


:y 


hy  Tradition,  Bible,  Philosopltj,  Heresy. 


167 


anti-Gnostic  writer  who  ventures  to  call  Cliristiai]''.y 
itself  the  highest  philosophy  {Dial.  ii.).  Whether 
true  or  false,  the  doctrine  of  Christ  here  formulated 
and  completed  at  Nicaea  was  "the  last  great  product 
of  the  Greek  mind "  (iSohm,  Umriss,  S.  37). 
Never  before  had  educated  heathen  seemed  so  disposed 
to  study  the  claims  of  Christ  as  just  when  the  first  band 
of  converted  philosophers  felt  called  to  present  Him 
as  the  end  of  all  philosophy.  Christianity,  moving 
from  the  ground  of  lievelation  toward  that  of  KeavSon, 
met  the  Platonic-Stoic  Reason  of  the  Empire  moving 
toward  Revelation.^  As  Christian  prophets  were  be- 
coming Christian  philosophers,  heathen  philosophers 
werebecomingheathen  prophets.  Ancient  speculation 
broke  down  with  the  finite  mind  confessing  its  in- 
ability to  grasp  the  Infinite  God  and  reach  religious 
certainty.  Philosophical  religion  revived  with  the 
thought  that  man  in  vision,  in  ecstasy  could  become  a 
part  of  God,  and  as  Seer  know  God  through  obser- 
vation and  Revelation.  The  later  Stoics  as  well  as 
Platonists  gav^e  great  value  to  prophecy.  Now  a 
central  thought  in  all  ancient  })hilosoph}  was  that  of 
the  Logos,^  which  when  applied  to  God  meant  both 
Reason  and  Revelation,  as  when  aj)plled  to  man  it 
meant  both  thought  and  speech.  This  Divine  Logos 
was  the  soul  of  the  universe,  its  rational  principle; 
it  was  also  the  "seed,"  the  germ  of  the  divine  in  man. 
It  lay,  therefore,  in  the  mind  of  God,  at  the  heart  of 
the  universe,  and  was  the  divine    element  in   human 


/ 


1  See,  for  example,  Plutarch,  (d.  120)  in  Zcllcr,  PhUosophie 
der  Griechen,  3  Auf.  Leipzig,  1881,  3  Th.  li  Ab.  S.  I59f. 

2  See  Heinzv%  Die    Lehre  vom   Lorfos    in   der   Oriech.   PhU- 
osophie. 


108 


Develojjinent  of  Cliristology^ 


r,  ■ 


f 


U 


history.  Here,  then,  it  is  plain  is  a  most  striking 
philosophical  counterpart  to  the  religious  conception 
of  Jesus  Christ,  which  had  grown  up  in  the  Church. 
Apostolic  teachings  exalted  Christ  as  one  with  God, 
His  Word,  by  whom  he  made  the  world,  Lord  of 
Nature;  He  was  ev^en  given  the  name  Logos  in  de- 
scribing; His  work  as  creator  and  lookino;  forward  to 
His  incarnation  in  Jesus  Christ  (John  i.  If.).  Now 
if  these  thino-s  were  true  in  the  teachinixs  of  Jesus 
himself,  of  the  Apostles,  and  of  all  Church  usage, 
they  could  not  be  false,  it  was  felt,  when  found  in 
the  wisdom  of  the  Greeks.  The  Apologists  rather  re- 
garded the  coincidence  as  most  significant  and  provi- 
dential; the  only  question  was  how  these  few  sunlit 
peaks  could  be  claimed  for  Christianity  and  the  dark 
mountains  beyond  be  left,  where  they  belonged,  in 
the  domain  of  demons.  The  point  of  contact  was  the 
Logos  spennatihoH^  which  Justin  identified  with  the 
Divine  Christ.  He  is  the  light  that  lightens  every 
man  comine:  into  the  world;  and  ravs  from  Him  en- 
lightened  both  Jewish  prophets  and  the  few  sages, 
like  Socrates,  who  knew  the  true  God.^  Greek  phi- 
losophy found  a  seed  of  this  Logos  in  reason,  and  re- 
ceived more  of  it  from  the  Old  Testament,  which  was 
older  than  the  wisdom  of  Greece.  The  full  revelation 
of  the  Divine  Logos,  however,  was  in  Jesus  Christ. 
He  existed  in  God  from  all  eternity,  as  Reason.  He 
was  the  perfect  Revealer  of  God,  who  came  forth  from 
the  Father  not  by  abscission,  but  by  participation,  as 
one  torch  is  kindled  by  another.  He  was  "the  first- 
begotten  work  of  the  Father  "  (Tatian  v.), and  came 

*  Justin,    I  Ap.  xlvi;  II   Ap.    x;  xiii;  Tertullian,   De   test. 
animai\  aud  Apol.   xvii. 


' 


^m 


by  Tradition,  Bible,  Philosophy,  Heresy. 


109 


into  indepcudent  activity  through  the  will  of  God 
(Justin,  I  Ap.  xxiii.).  By  the  Logos-Christ  the  world 
was  made,  and  He  is  immanent,  though  in  very  dif- 
ferent degrees,  in  Christians,  philosophers,  and  all 
men.  The  Stoic  idea  of  many  \6yoi  in  men  and  one 
Logos  in  God — "th^ '^  are  but  broken  lights  of  Thee" 
— was  clearly  adopted  by  Justin  and  applied  to  Christ. 
Through  this  "  Seminal  Logos  "  he  claimed  for  Chris- 
tianity all  that  was  true  in  religion  and  philosophy. 
But  he  made  prominent  also  the  incarnation  and  all 
the  life  of  the  historic  Christ.  The  Logos  doctrine 
was  even  of  secondary  importance  in  his  circle  of 
thought;  he  introduced  it  for  Apologetic  pui-poses, 
chieliy  (cf.  Fleming,  S.  22).  The  mystery  of  Chris- 
tianity for  him  is  not  in  the  Trinity,  which  is  Vvell 
known,  but  in  the  thought  that  the  Lord  dwelt  in  a 
crucified  man,  and  that  this  man  should  have  the 
second  place  after  the  eternal  God  (I  Ap.  xiii.).  He 
devotes  forty  chapters  of  his  great  Apology  to  an  ex- 
planation and  defence  of  the  worship  of  Christ  (xii-lx.). 
And  it  is  to  the  Old  Testament  and  the  "Me- 
moirs of  the  Apostles"  that  he  aj^peals  to  prove 
that  Christ  is  "  the  Son  of  God,  who  proceeded  before 
all  creatures  from  the  Father  by  His  power  and  will." 
Justin's  view  is  a  subordination  Logos  Christology 
based  on  Scripture,  but  elaborated  with  the  help  of 
philosophy.^     Ritschl   well  points  out,    what   Huicli 

1  Sanday  says  {Gospels  in  the  Secotid  Cenfjiry,  1876,  p.  287): 
*'  'The  Word  became  flesh'  is  the  key  by  which  .lustin  is  made 
intelligible,  and  that  key  is  supplied  by  the  Fourth  Gospel. 
No  other  writer  had  combined  these  two  ideas  before — the 
divine  Logos  with  the  historical  personality  of  Jesus."  The 
only  other  possible  view    is  the   very    improbable    theory    of 


\ 


fi 


mP^  np 


¥  '■ 


170 


Development  of  Christology^ 


ignores,  the  great  influence  of  the  Old  Testament, 
probably  colored  by  Philonic  exegesis,  upon  Justin's 
views  of  Christ.  In  opposition  to  the  Judaizingof 
Christianity  by  Ebionites,  he  held  to  the  Divine 
Christ  by  "  Christianizing  the  Old  Testament "  to  find 
in  it  what  Ritsehl  calls  the  "Catholic-orthodox  Chris- 
tology"  (1.  c.  S.  307).  But  he  did  not  pour  Hellen- 
ism into  Christology  through  his  exegesis  of  Scripture, 
for  he  knew  the  Fourth  Gospel,^  which  gives  the 
Logos  view  of  Christ,-  his  use  of  the  Bible  is  natural 
not  philosophical,  and,  as  Ritsehl  admits,  Justin  but 
followed  Peter  (I  Pet.  i.  11)  and  Paul,  in  referring 
"all  prophecy  of  the  Old  Testament  to  Christ  as 
subject." 

The  other  Apologists  agree  as  far  as  they  go  with 
Justin.     Aristides,  the    oldest  Apologist,    condemns 

Volkmar,  that  the  Fourth  Gospel  borrowed  from  Justin.  Dr. 
Jame^"  Druraraoncl  (7%e  Theological  Review^  Oct.,  1875,  Ap. 
and  July,  1877)  and  Dr.  Ezra  Abbot  {Authorship  of  the  Fourth 
Gospel,  1880),  two  scholarly  Unitarians,  show  clearly  that 
Justin  knew  the  Fourth  Gospel.  Sanday  says  further:  "  Fre- 
quently as  Justin  brings  in  the  Logos  doctrine,  it  is  almost  al- 
ways in  immediate  connection  with  the  subject  of  the  Incarna- 
tion. 'OX6yo<i6dp^  kyivETo  seems  to  be  ringing  in  Justin's 
ears.  But  these  are  the  words  of  St.  John  and  not  of  Philo." 
^  Also  I  .John,  in  which  (iii.  9),  the  "Seminal"  idea  apart 
from  the  Logos  api)oars.  See  Flemming,  Zur  Beurtheiluvj  des 
Christenthums  Justi7is.     Leipzig,  1893,  S.  12. 

2  As  Ilarnack  admits  (I.  66),  unaffected  by  Philo  and 
Hellenism.  Finding  all  foreign  sources  cut  off,  he  frankly  de- 
clares "the  origin  of  ♦he  Johannine  writings,  whether  regarded 
from  tho  point  of  view  of  literature  or  history  of  doctrine,  the 
most  wonderful  problem  which  the  earliest  history  of  Christian- 
ity offers  '■  [if).). 


'm 


by  Tradition,  Bible,  Philosajylaj,  Heresy. 


171 


pagan  philosophy  as  having  no  positive  relation  to 
revelation.^  He  says :  "  God  came  down  from  heaven 
by  the  Holy  Ghost  and  became  incarnate  of  the  Vir- 
gin Mary,  and  there  dwelt  the  Son  of  God  in  a 
daughter  of  men.  This,"  he  says,  "is  from  the  gospel 
which  a  short  time  ago  was  preached  "  (ii.  7).  Aristo 
of  Pella'^  (A.  D.  150)  defends  Cliriatology  against  the 
charge  of  Ditheism,  arguing  from  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, and  meeting  the  objection  that  Christ  could 
not  be  the  Son  of  God  and  also  born  of  a  Virji-in. 
Atheuagoras  says  the  incomprehensible  God  created 
the  world  "by  His  Logos,"  and  adds:  "The  Son  is 
the  Logos  of  the  Father  in  idea  and  activity  "  (^Legat. 
X.).  His  view  is  more  abstract  than  Justin's;  he  says 
Father  and  Son  are  one,  for  "  the  mind  and  reason 
(Logos)  of  the  Father  is  the  Son  of  God."  This 
Logos  came  to  expression  at  creation  and  became  in- 
carnate in  Christ.  Tatian  and  the  Latin  Ajiologists 
repeat  these  views,  though  taking  a  more  hostile  at- 
titude toward  Greek  philosophy.  They  vie  with 
each  other  in  exalting  Christ.^ 


1  See  Seeberg,  N'eue  Kirchl.  Zcitschrift.  1891.   H.  xii. 

2  Wliose  Dialogue  Harnack  thinks  is  reproduced  in  the 
Aftercatio  t'Hmonis  Jndaei  et  Thenphili  Chrit<(iani  (See  his 
l)()ok,  Leijtzi/,  1H83,  pp.  lir»f.).  In  this  connection  Harnack 
expresses  the  opinion  that  "we  know,  at  least  according  to 
t^eir  titles,  the  greatest  part  of  the  intiuential  Church  writings 
that  appeared  in  tln^  secoutl  century."  The  Diuhxjue  of  Aristo 
was  with  a  Jew,  and  appeared  A.  I).  135-170.  Cf.  Kriiger, 
Gesdiichte  dn-  aftchn'stl.  Littcratnr,  Freihiirg.    1895.  S.  04. 

3  Harnack  calls  the  '*  Acts  of  Apollouius  "  (d.  185),  "  in  der 
That  die  voruehmste  Apologie  des  Christenthuras  die  wir  aus 
dem  Alterthum  besitzen  "  (in  Conybeare's  edition  of  this  work, 


172 


#  • 


I  ;    • 


y  'f 


Developtnent  of  Chridolofjy^ 


Now  what  shall  we  say  of  this  Logos  Christology, 
and  how  far  was  iu  perverted  by  Greek  speculation? 

(1)  It  is  at  once  evident  that  Christianity  is  pre- 
sented by  the  Apologists  as  much  as  possible  in  the 
terms  of  philosophy.  Jesus,  the  Son  of  God,  is  made 
the  Logos  of  Hellenic  thought.  But  the  Christian 
consciousness  introduces  many  modifications.  Justin's 
Logos  differs  from  the  Stoic  Logos  in  being  personal, 
separate  from  both  God  and  nature,  mediator,  not 
part  of  a  physical  world  process,  eternally  distinct 
from  God  and  the  world,  the  ethical  principle,  the 
moral  ruler  of  tlie  universe,  who  is  independent  of 
all  natural  development,  and  who  leaves  man  free  to 
follow  the  "  seed  of  the  Logos  "  in  him  or  not.^  Justin 
called  Christ  the  Logos,  more  with  reference  to  Him 
as  an  object  of  worship,  and  to  show  the  universal 
importance  of  His  doctrine  (cf.  Thomasius  I.  171); 
but  Tatian  (c.  5)  and  Athenagoras  (^Legat.  x.)  took 
another  step  by  means  of  Greek  thought  and  dis- 
tinguished the  Logos  as  silent  reason  from  the  Logos 
going  forth  as  creative  Word  from  God.  Theophilus 
first  (^Ad.  Autoly.  ii.  10)  among  Christians  called 
these    the  Aoyos  ^vSza'ecro?   and    the    x6yoi  npoqiopixo?. 

(2)  The   Apologists   based  their  Christology  on 

p.  30);  and  in  this  solemn  Apology  Christ  is  spoken  of  as  one 
"Avho  knoweth  the  thoughts  of  men,  and  beholdeth  whatsoever 
is  done  in  secret  or  in  the  open  "  (p.  37).  He  "became  man 
in  Judaea."  Apollonius  desired  to '<  live  in  Christ,"  who  was 
"the  Word  of  God,  the  Saviour  of  souls  and  of  bodies"  (p. 
46).  Apollonius  is  unique  in  first  referring  the  description  of 
Plato's  Just  One,  spit  upon  and  crucified  (Republic  ii.  p.  36 If.), 
to  Christ. 

1  Cf.  Duuker,  Die  LogosleJire  Justin^ s.  Gt\ttingen.  1848. 
S.  35f. 


If'' 


■1 


hy  Tradition^  Bible,  Philomphy,  HereHtj. 


173 


Scripture.  Harnack  says  they  made  Christianity  a  re- 
vealed philosophy,  and  this  is  "the progress  in  develop- 
ment" which  they  mark  (I.  o73).  It  would  be  more 
truthful  to  our  ears  to  call  it  a  revealed  theology,  for 
that  was  its  character  to  the  Apologists.  And  the  the- 
ology revealed  was  not  merely  a  Divine  Logos, 
teaching  God,  virtue  and  immortality*;  hut  all  the 
supernatural,  miraculous,  historical,  anti-Gnostic  ele- 
ments in  Christ's  life  and  teachings  were  part  of  this 
revealed  philosophy.- 

(3)  A  third  problem  involved  in  this  Christology 
was  that  of  the  two  conflicting  elements  in  God — His 
Infinity  and  His  Personality.  From  Plato  to  Schlei- 
ermacher  the  discussion  runs.  It  was  not  settled  by 
the  Apologists.  Justin  speaks  like  a  Greek  philoso- 
pher, and  like  every  philosopher,  of  the  transcendent 
God;  but  as  a  Christian  he  emphasizes  the  Divine 
Personality;  and  it  is  only  in  a  subordinate  sense  that 
his  conception  of  God  is  Hellenic.  His  view  of  the 
Logos  shared  in  this  somewhat  abstract,  far-off  con- 
ception of  God;  but  it  was  balanced,  though  not  in  a 
very  harmonious  way,  by  the  historic  Christ.  The 
immanence  of  God  was  largely  set  aside,  to  put  the 
Logos  spermatilcos  in  its  place.  The  Apologists  ad- 
mitted largely  the  Pharisaic  and  Greek  view  of  an  "  Un- 
known God,"  just  as  the  Ritschl  school  now  on  other 
grounds  preach  an  unknown  God,  that  the  absolute 
value  of  the  Divine  Christ  as  the  way  to  God  might 


.    i 


»   So  Von  Engelharclt,  1.  c.  S.  05,329. 

2  Cf.  Aristides,  Apology,  cc.  xv — xxii.,  and  the  remarks  of 
Seeberg,  Der  Apolof/et  Aristides,  Erlangen,  1894.  S.  21f. ;  cf. 
also  Justin,  I.  A]),  cc.  xxif. 


ti:.  ^ 


174 


Development  of  Christology^ 


r' 

i 


the   more   appear.     The  Christian   Logos  is   always 
personal,  active,  one  with  Jesus  Christ.* 

(4)  This  view  of  Christ  as  Logos  put  creation, 
Old  Testament  revelation.  Divine  Providence,  and 
human  history  all  in  subjection  to  the  Redemption 
wrought  by  Christ.  Creative  Word  and  Revealing 
Word  Avere  the  same.  Jewish  law  and  Greek  wisdom 
moved  about  the  cross  and  found  their  glory  in  it. 

(5)  This  Logos  theory  also  gave  a  psychological 
stamp  to  the  su])ordination  of  Christ.  He  was  one 
with  God  as  Reason ;  l)ut,  as  Word  from  the  Divine 
mind.  He  was  derived,  "  second,''  subordinate  in 
Revelation  and  Incarnation.  He  was  not  Liiinite  as 
the  Father,  but  finite,  that  He  might  enter  into  finite 
relations,  as  in  Old  Testament  theophanies,  and  the 
life  of  Christ. 

(6)  To  meet  the  charge  of  Ditheism,  the  Apolo- 
gists found  the  origin,  the  generation  of  Christ  in 
the  Godhead — He  was  one  with  the  Father — and  then 
they  taught  that  this  generation  was  eternal.  But  we 
need  hardly  conclude  with  Hatch  (1.  c.  p.  266),  that 
these  two  ideas  were  borrowed  from  remote  realms  of 
Greek  philosophy;  for  the  Apologists  claim  that  they 
are  necessary  inferences  of  reason — the  Greeks  had  no 
patent  rights  on  common  sense — and  again  they  quote 
Scripture  support  for  all  this  Christology.^ 

(7)  A  comparison  of  this  Christology  with  that 
of  the  Apostolic  Fathers,  shows  not  a  little  difference. 
Here  the  subject  is  regarded  more  from  the  point  of 

1  Read  Paul,   Die  Logoslchre  des  Justiii'Sj  in  Jahrhb.    f. 
Prot.  Theologie,  1886,  H.  iv.  and  Seeberg,  1.  c.  S,  74. 

2  Cf.  Justin,  I.   Aj).    xxi-liv.   throughout,  II.  Ap.  vi-xiii; 
Dial,  xiii-xxvi,  xlvi,  1-cxxi. 


ii: 


by  Tradition^  Bible,  Philosoj^hy.  Heresy. 


175 


view  of  God  and  the  world;  there  rather  from  a  study 
of  the  historic  Christ.  Loofs  thinks  the  Apologetic 
doctrine  lower  than  that  of  the  Fathers,  by  putting 
the  Logos  in  place  of  God,  and  o))scuring  the  life  of 
Jesus.'  There  is  no  doubt  a  different  perspective; 
and  yet  no  higher  Christ  is  held  up  by  the  converted 
philosopher  than  by  the  martyr  bishop,  llarnack 
admits  this  (I.  403f.)  when  he  says  that  the  doctrine 
that  "the  principle  of  tlie  universe  was  also  the 
princi[)le  of  Revelation" — given  precision  by  the 
Apologists — was  "  in  fact  an  important  primitive 
Christian  thought."  The  same  traditional  teaching 
caused  the  separation  by  Justin  of  the  prophetic 
Spirit  from  the  Logos.  It  is  important  to  observe 
that  the  doctrine  of  the  Divine  Ciuist  is  everywhere 
presupposed  l)y  the  Apologists.  Philosophy  did  not 
produce  the  Divine  Man;  it  was  only  called  in  to  help 
make  Him  intelligible  to  educated  Greeks.  llarnack 
thinks  the  prologue  to  the  Fourth  Gospel  was  written 
for  this  very  purpose  f  if  so,  it  shows  an  attempt  to 
meet  the  same  need  long  before  any  of  our  Apologists 
had  written. 

(8)  Concurrent  and  subsequent  preaching  of 
Christ  in  the  churches  saw  nothing  foreign  in  the 
Logos  Christology.  The  famous  passage  in  Tertullian 
(^Adv.  Prax.  ii.),  often  quoted  to  prove  the  contrary, 
only  says  the  simple  people '  objected  to  terms  like 

»   Dof/mengeschichte,  Halle,  1889.  S.  32. 

2  Zeitschrift.  f.  Theol  u.  Kirche,  ii.  S.  189f.  Cf.  D.  G. 
Eugl.  Trans.  1895,  I.  p.  95. 

3  Not  "older  sort  of  Christian  philosophers"  as  Hatch  de- 
scribes them  (p.  257).  His  words  are:  "  SirnpUces  enim  qui- 
que,  ne  dixerim  i/nprudentes,  et  idiota^,  quae  major  semper  cred- 
entiiim pars  est.'''' 


IMAGE  EVALUATION 
TEST  TARGET  (MT.3) 


A 


^^  /<^>^. 


1.0 


I.I 


*-|||IM    IIIII2-5 
>^  1^    ill  2.2 


1.8 


1.25 

1.4 

J4 

-* 

6"     - 

► 

V] 


<^ 


/a 


^ 


A5 


^. 


7 


Photographic 

Sciences 

Corporation 


23  WEST  MAIN  STREET 

WEBSTER, NY.  MS80 

(716)  872-4503 


m 


\ 


\ 


\ 


f? 


€> 


\ 


> 


p\/» 


'^i 


t;^ 


v.4p   I 


6 


i\ 


\ 


..      O 

\#'*. 

•:<■ 


;\ 


<•> 


V 


■ 


I 


.    ( 


5  ■■  * 


176 


Development  of  Ch'istology^ 


otxovoftia,  imported  from  Greek  into  Latin  to  describe 
the  Trinity,  and  not  to  the  Divine  Christ  Himself. 
The  Apostolic  Fathers  prayed  to  the  Redeemer;  even 
the  Jewish  Christians  of  the  Clementine  Literature  did 
the  same;'  within  fifteen  years  of  the  death  of  John, 
Pliny  was  told  that  Christians  '^Carmen  Chri.^to 
quasi  Deo  canimty  This  ^^qiiasi,^''  got  by  Pliny  from 
the  lips  of  lapsed  Christians,  has  evidently  a  tone  of 
contempt  in  it  (cf.  Zalin,  Skizzen,  S.  4.).  He  speaks 
as  Irenaeus  does  of  Simon  Magus,  honored  by  many 
'•'•qaasi  Deus''''  (L  23,  1).^  But,  as  a  man  of  the 
Apologists'  days  wrote,  "all  the  psalms  and  hymns 
of  the  brethren,  which  have  been  written  from  the  be- 
ginning by  the  faithful,  celebrate  Christ  the  Word  of 
God,  ascribing  Divinity  to  Him/'  ^  Christ  was  no 
quasi  God  for  them,  no  man  having  the  religious  value 
of  God;  for  they  rejoiced  in  the  sneer  of  Celsus  that 
they  prayed  to  "  a  crucified  God,"  *  and  looked  for 
i^ictory  through  the  Galilean.  The  attempt  of 
Harnack  to  float  his  "Adoption"  Christology  by 
identifying  it  with  primitive  eschatology  is  not  suc- 
cessful; the  fact  is  the  glorious  hopes  of  a  kingdom 
to  come  were  built  upon  a  Christ  of  divine  jiGwer  and 

*  Cf.  Ep.  to  James,  in  the  C/em.  Horn.  xvi.  15,  18,  19. 

2  Zahn  quotes  in  this  connection  {Ski'zzen,  S.  288)  Tertul- 
lian'e  reference  to  Pliny's  remark,  where  he  speaks,  howeve".',  of 
^^catienditm  Christo  nt  Deo''''  {ApoL  ii.),  and  continues:  "The 
former  expression  {quasi  Dens)  was  appro})riate  in  the  moutli 
of  renegade  Christians  and  the  judge  who  produced  literally 
their  words;  the  second  {lit  Deus)  was  appropriate  in  the  mouth 
of  the  Church  herself." 

3  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccles.  v.  28. 

*  Origcn,    Cont.  Cela.  ii.  37f. 


hy  Tradition,  Bible,  PhilosopJnj,  lie  res  tj. 


^T 


177 


majesty,  while  the  splendor  of  that  coming  age  also 
reflected  new  glory  upon  the  King  who  was  to  bring 
it  in.  No  martyr  could  die  for  less  than  a  Divine 
Christ.  Stephen  saw  heaven  opened  and  Jesus  at  the 
right  hand  of  God;  then  he  prayed,  "  Lord  Jesus,  re- 
ceive my  spirit."  Polycarp  died  praising  "the  ever- 
lasting and  heavenly  Jesus  Christ."  '  Apollonius,  a 
contemporary  of  Tatian  (180), before  the  Roman  Senate 
confessed  first  the  Incarnate  Logos  of  God,  and  when 
led  to  death  praised  "  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost," 
repeating  his  baptismal  faith.  Justin  saw  these 
things,  and  said  the  refusal  of  Christians  to  pray  to 
any  Son  of  God  but  Clirist  was  what  caused  their 
death  (cf.  also  Irenaeus,  IV.  33,  9). 

(y).  We  reach,  then,  the  important  conclusion 
that  the  Logos  teachings  of  the  Apologists  were  re- 
garded as  but  a  theological  statement  of  the  Christian 
teachings  of  all  believers.  The  first  converted  scholars, 
within  the  lifetime  of  men  who  were  taught  by 
Apostles,  gave  an  intellectual  expression  to  the  re- 
ligious estimate  of  Christ  cherished  in  the  Church ; 
and  that  expression  has  never  since  been  challenged 
by  any  great  body  of  Christian  men.  We  agree  with 
Professor  McGiffert  (1.  c.)  that  the  essential  ehmients 
of  the  Nicene  theoloi;y,  centerini;  in  tlie  Loi'os-Christ, 
and  supported  by  appeals  to  reason,  (Christian  tra- 
dition, and  Scripture,  were  all  active  in  the  Church  in 
this  Apologetic  Age;  but  of  the  amazing  "trans- 
formations "  by  which  Jesus,  a  prophet  teaching  love 
to  God  and  man,  became  the  Divine  Christ  creating. 


Martyrdom  of  Pvlycarp,  c.  xiv. 


;;-n 


I  MMsf^: 


f 

'A 

i 


178 


Develo^mient  of  Chriatology^ 


governing  and  redeeming  the  world,  we  find  no  trace.' 
The  theory  of  Strauss,  accounting  for  the  miracles  of 
the  New  Testament,  fell  to  vhe  ground  because  no 
time  could  be  found  for  the  growth  of  the  necessary 
myths;  in  like  manner  the  Divine  Christ,  the  mystery 
of  the  gospel,  finds  no  time  or  place  to  grow  up  in  the 
Church;  and  if  not  there  frt)m  the  beginning  is  abso- 
lutely inexplicable  on  historic  grounds.  But  while 
Christ  is  not  a  product  of  the  devotion  or  the  specu- 
lation of  Christians,  the  doctrine  of  Christ,  tlie  grow- 
ing apprehension  of  what  He  is  and  what  the  Script- 
ures say  He  is,  does  form  an  important  chapter  in  the 
history  of  Christian  thought. 

This  is  clearly  seen  when  we  pass  to  Irenaeus,  who 
took  up  the  Christology  of  Ignatius  in  the  light  of 
the  Apologists  and  in  opposition  to  the  Gnostics. 
Harnack  well  remarks  (1.  464)  that  "  in  the  develop- 
ment of  Christology  lies  the  liistoric  importance  of 
Irenaeus.  The  Christology  of  the  Church  is  still  what 
he  set  forth."  The  writer  of  "the  little  labyrinth," 
who  spoke  of  the  hymns  of  the  post- Apostolic  Church 
centering  in  praise  to  Christ,  tells  us  that  the  Apolo- 
gists defended  "Christ  as  God,"  while  Melito  and 
Irenaeus  "  teach  that  Christ  is  God  and  Man " 
(Eusebius,  //.  Jil.  v.  28).  Whether  that  be  an  in- 
tentional distinction  or  not  ;'^  it  indicates  the  progress 
now  attained.     Melito  says  of  Christ:     "  Inasmuch  as 

^  Renan  says  by  the  year  180,  Catholic  Christianity  with  all 
its  dogmas  was  coinplete.  It  is  impossible  that  the  pretended 
transformation  could  take  place  in  one  man's  life  from  the 
Apostles  (cf.  Renan,  Origins  of  Christianiti/,  Book  VII.  Pre- 
face'.). 

2  Harnack  thinks  it  is.     I.  S.  434. 


ny 


•  i 


by  Tradition.,  Bible,  Philosophy,  Heresy. 


171) 


■I.'' 


He  was  man  he  needed  food ;  but  inasmuch  as  He  was 
God,  He  ceased  not  to  feed  the  universe." '  Irenaeus 
took  up  this  view,  and,  as  none  before  him,  fully 
brought  out  the  God-manhood  of  Christ.  In  un- 
broken connection  with  the  belief  of  primitive  Chris- 
tianity,* "  faithful  to  that  fruitful  doctrine  of  the  Word, 
which  combines  in  such  deep  and  living  harmony  the 
human  element  and  the  divine"  (Pressense,  1.  c.  375), 
he  presents  in  the  richest  way  the   perfect  manhood, 

*  Cf.  fragment  of  Melito'a  writings  from  Cureton's  Spie.  S>/r., 
in  McGiffcrt's  edition  of  Eusebius,  //.  E.  p.  247.  Another 
fragment  of  Melito's  Apologies,  clearly  reclaimed  for  him  hy 
Harnack  {Die  Ueberllefeninrf  der  Griech.  Apolof/eten,  Leipzig, 
1882,  S.  254f.),  reads  as  follows:  ♦*  There  is  no  necessity  for 
those  who  have  understanding  to  prove,  from  what  Christ  did 
after  Ilis  baptism,  the  true  and  real  character  of  his  soul  and 
body  (against  Marcion  who  declared  the  body  of  Christ  '  un- 
real'),  of  His  human  nature  among  us;  for  t'le  things  done  by 
Christ  after  His  baptism,  and  especially  the  miracles,  manifested 
His  Godhead  hidden  in  the  flesh,  and  convinced  the  world.  For 
being  both  perfect  God  and  perfect  man  together.  He  assured 
us  of  His  two  natures  (owtfats).  He  showed  His  Godhead  by 
miracles  during  the  period  of  three  years  after  His  baptism, 
and  His  humanity  during  the  thirty  years  before  His  baptism, 
when  through  the  limitations  which  belong  to  the  flesh  the  sigiip 
of  His  Godhead  were  hidden,  although  he  was  the  true  eternal 
God."  There  is  not  a  moie  striking  testimony  to  the  Divine 
Christ  in  Origen  or  Athanasius,  than  is  found  here  as  early  as 
A.  D.  150  in  Melito.  The  "Godhead,"  the  two  "essences," 
human  and  divine,  the  perfect  humanity,  the  full  deity,  all  are 
here,  and  that  in  the  teachings  of  a  man  who  was  honored  by 
post-Apostolic  Christians,  both  East  and  West,  as  a  saint  and 
prophet  of  God.  Harnack  makes  it  very  probable  that  Tertul- 
lian  largely  followed  the  teachings  of  Melito  in  this  high 
Christology,  but  both  followed  John  and  Paul. 

2  See  Miiller,  Kirchengesch.     I.  S.  91. 


IS 


180 


Development  of  Christologyy 


I  IN 


tbe  perfect  Godhead  of  our  blessed  Lord  and  their 
absohite  unity  in  Him.  God  is  "all  mind  and  all 
Logos  "  (IL  28,5)  J  hence  what  He  thinks  and  says  are 
identical.  The  mind  of  God  is  the  Father;  the  Logos 
is  the  Son;  but  how  the  Son  comes  from  the  Father, 
Irenaeus  says,  no  man  can  tell  (H.  28,  6).  The 
Creator  God,  however,  and  the  Divine  Christ  were 
held  against  the  Gnostics  as  the  two  fundamentals  of 
all  tlieology.  His  faith  rested  in  "one  God,  the 
Father  Almighty,  and  in  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the 
Son  of  God"  (I.  3,  5).  From  this  vantage  ground 
he  refuted  Ebionites,  holding  that  Jesus  was  son  of 
Joseph,  (HI.  21,  1)  and  Gnostics  who  dissolved  Christ 
into  a  cloud  of  aeons  (HI.  Preface).  Faith  in  Christ 
is  as  essential  as  faith  in  God.  All  God's  revelation 
was  mediated  by  Christ,  and  this  truth  was  first  re- 
vealed to  Christians.  Irenaeus  held  that  the  Old 
Testament  prophets  were  inspired  by  Christ;  he 
thought  that  Mosaic  legislation  also  came  from  God 
through  Christ  (cf.  Ritschl,  S.  317).  This  opened 
a  door  for  allegorists,  like  Clement  of  Alexandria, 
and  Origen,  to  find  wonderful  things  in  both  law  and 
prophets. 

But  the  center  of  all  his  thought  was  the  Incar- 
nation. He  says  no  heretic  believed  that  God  was 
manifest  in  the  flesh.  Neither  did  he  think  the 
Apologists  fully  set  forth  this  truth  (IV.  6,  2 ;  V.  26,  2  ). 
He  rejected  their  emanation  view  of  the  Logos, 
especially  their  statements  that  He  was  first  dis- 
tinguished from  the  Father  in  time  (II.  30,  9).  He 
did  not  believe  in  Gnostic  aeons;  neither  did  he  accept 
the  Divine  Reason  sending  forth  the  Word,  as  held  by 
Tatian,  Athenagoras  and  Theophilus  (cf.  Thomasius, 


hy  2'racIUion,  Bible,  Philosophy,  Heresy. 


181 


I.  ITOf.).  We  cannot  compare,  he  said,  God  and  the 
Logos  to  man's  liiind  and  his  speech  (11.  13,  8;  II. 
29,  3),  for  the  Divine  cannot  be  measured  by  human 
standards. '  His  creed  is  of  "  one  Christ  Jesus  the 
Sou  of  God,  who  became  incarnate  for  our  salvation  " 
(I.  10,  1).  This  historic  ^on  of  God,  however,  was 
really  the  Divine  Christ,  the  Logos  incarnate  to  reveal 
God  and  redeem  man.  He  was  not  the  world  idea, 
the  Divine  consciousness,  or  the  Creator  Word,  but 
the  self-revelation  of  the  self-conscious  God  and  the 
principle  of  Divine  revelation.  He  was  of  the  same 
substance  with  the  Father,  eternally  God's  Revealer, 

1  Irenaeus  rejected  the  emanation  view  of  the  Gnostics,  (II. 
13,  4-C)  as  well  as  that  of  Tatian,  Athenagoras  and  Theop'  ilus, 
who  regarded  the  Divine  Logos  as  Hrst  Reason,  then  the  Divine 
Word  articulate.  He  held  these  statements,  comparing  the 
origin  of  the  Logos  with  the  birth  of  man's  word  from  his 
reason,  are  niislea<ling;  for  Divine  relations  cannot  be  measured 
by  human  Unite  standards  (II.  13,  8.).  In  opposition  to 
this  psychological  Christology,  he  appealed  to  the  revelation 
of  the  Scriptures.  Here  Christ  appears  as  Divine  Savic  ir,  in 
absolute,  essential  relation  to  the  Lord  ou'r  righteousness  (III. 
16,  7).  All  revelation,  all  redemption  took  jilace  through 
the  Son;  this  made  both  Old  Testament  and  New  proceed 
from  Christ,  and  led  the  early  Church  to  expound  the  Law 
and  the  Proi)het8,  as  well  as  the  Gospels,  as  teaching  Christ. 
Here,  as  Neander  pointed  out,  was  one  source,  ho  thinks  the 
great  soui'ce,  of  Legalism  in  the  Church  of  the  second  century, 
as  well  as  Hellenism,  which  promoted  Morallsm  in  Christian 
teachings.  In  these  Scriptures  Irenaeus  found  Christ  to  be  the 
self-revelation  of  God  {W .  0,  0),  wholly  divine,  of  the  same 
substance  with  the  Fatlier  (II.  28;  II.  13,  8),  therefore  both 
Creator  and  God,  eternal  (II.  30,  9;  III.  18,  1),  and  eternally  re- 
vealed to  angels  and  powers;  not  lirst  revealed  at  Creation  or 
in  *he  Incarnation. 


I 


1  I 


m% 


i  i 


1.82 


Development  of  Christologyy 


and  not  first  manifest  in  creation,  prophecy,  or  at  the 
Incarnation.  The  eternal  generation  of  the  Son  first 
found  clear  expression  in  Irenaeus  (III.  16,  7).  For 
proof  of  this  Christology  he  appeals  to  Scripture,  to 
all  churches  in  all  the  past  (I.  10,  1:  V.  20,  2),  to  the 
Christian  consciousness  (IV.  33)  and  to  the  reality  of 
redemption  as  resting  upon  the  reality  of  Christ's 
divinity  (II.  23,  3). 

This  last  was  vital,  for  Jesus  "  became  what  we 
are,  that  He  might  bring  us  to  be  what  He  Himself 
is"  (V.  Preface;  cf.  III.  18,  7).  Humanity  can 
reach  God  only  through  the  God-Man,  Jesus  Christ. 
Irenaeus  says  salvation  is  "receiving  Vjy  faith  the 
union  of  God  and  man  "  in  Christ.  The  Apologists 
had  presented  Christ  the  Logos  as  a  Divine  Illumi- 
nator, and  religion  largely  as  an  intellectual  prob- 
lem; but  Irenaeus  took  a  position  never  since  ex- 
ceeded in  making  the  Incarnation  redemptive^  the 
salvation  of  lost  men  by  the  Son  of  God  becoming 
man  (III.  20).  His  Christ  was  both  Revealer  and  Re- 
deemer. He  moved  beyond  the  position  of  the  Apolo- 
gists, in  making  the  personality  of  the  Logos  eternal, 
in  looking  at  the  Divine  Christ  steadily  from  the  point 
of  view  of  the  Incarnation,  in  showing  that  his  Chris- 
tology was  taught  by  all  the  Apostles  and  by  both 
Old  and  New  Testaments,  in  making  Christianity 
center  in  Christ,  the  giver  of  eternal  life — going  back 
here  to  the  Johannine  teachings  of  Ignatius — and  in 
combining  the  rich  primitive  eschatology  of  the 
Synoptists  with  the  Christology  of  John  and  the 
Apologists.  This  last  feature  surprises  Harnack 
(I.'*  527).  He  thinks  it  very  inconsistent,  though 
nearly  all  the  Christians   in  the   world,   outside  the 


ft!  «' 


hy  2r(i(liiio)iy  Bihle^  Philomplin^  Heresy. 


183 


18- 

th 


school  of  Ritschl,  accept  both  the  Christ  of  John  and 
the  eschatology  of  Matthew.  He  cuts  his  way  out 
as  usual  by  slicing  Irenaeus  and  his  followers  in 
twain.  They  all  held  the  old  eschatology ;  but  the 
old  eschatology,  Ilarnack  asserts,  though  giving  no 
proof  for  the  assertion,  went  with  the  "  Adoption  " 
Christology;  again,  all  these  Fathers  fill  their  books 
with  the  Logos '"'hristology ;  therefore,  the  conclusion 
is,  they  held  both.  As  private  Christians,  he  says, 
they  prayed  to  Christ  as  a  man  having  only  the  re- 
ligious value  of  God;  but,  in  conflict  with  philosophers 
and  Gnostics,  they  elaborated  a  Logos  Christ,  who, 
they  declared,  was  truly  God.  Ilarnack  explains 
such  "  Good  Lord,  good  devil "  views  by  a"  philosophy 
of  the  unconscious."  Irenaeus  was^ha^jpily  blind" 
to  the  chasm  between  his  world  of  ideas  and  Chris- 
tian tradition  (I.-  478).  So  were  the  A2)ol(»gists 
(1.2  278),  and  the  Apostolic  Fathers.  The  motto  for 
the  history  of  Christian  doctrine  is,  the  blind  leading 
the  blind  into  the  ditch  of  dogma. 

The  other  anti-Gnostic  Fathers — Hippolytus  and 
Tertullian — added  nothing  essentially  new  to  tlie  dis- 
cussion; ^  so  that  from  Irenaeus  on,  the  line  of  Chris- 

»  Tertullian  believerl  in  the  Divinity  of  Christ,  yet  was  not 
always  sure  how  best  to  express  the  relation  of  the  P^ither  and 
Son.  He  made  prominent  the  element  of  subordination  of  the 
Son,  and  could  say:  "Pater  substantia  est,  filius  vcro  d(^ 
rivatio  totius  et  portio.  Fnit  alitjuando,  quando  deo  filius  non 
fuit"  {Adv.  Prax.  ix.)  in  opposition  to  the  Monarchy  theory; 
he  urged  strongly  the  personality  of  Christ  and  hence  was  a[)t 
to  go  too  far  in  the  assertion  of  difference  between  Father  and 
Son.  The  taunt  of  ho'.ding  <*two  gods"  led  him  and  Hip- 
polytus to  make  free  use  of  the  thought  of  subordination  {Adv. 
Prax.  iii.  Cont.  Noet.  xii,    in  Harnack,  I.  618).     But  this  did 


111 

r 


1S4 


Development  of  Chri^tolof/y, 


tological  iiKjuiry  runs  through  the  Monarchian  con- 
troversy on  the  one  hand,  and  tlie  Christological 
GnoHticism  of  the  Alexandrian  Scliool  on  the  other, 
until  it  reached  autht)ritative  expression,  in  opposition 
to  Arianism,  at  Nicuja. 

We  have  seen  that  the  indefinite  point  in  the 
Christology  of  Irenaeus  wan  where  the  Son  of  Man 
and  the  Son  of  God  meet.  He  held  both  and  de- 
feuded  ])oth;  but  did  not  try  to  explain  their  relation. 
The  Apologists  also  had  left  the  (piestion  unanswered. 
The  Monarchiaua,  instead  of  ti*ying  to  answer  it, 
jiushed  the  analysis  of  the  Divine  and  the  human  to 
extremes,  seeking  thereby  to  show  that  Christ  might 
be  divine  or  human  ])ut  could  not  be  both.  They 
continued  the  Ebionitic  and  Gnostic  opinions'  but  on 
a  liigher  plane  (cf.  Tlioinasius,  I.  ITD);  Jesus  was 
either  a  man  with  a  spiritual  power  descending  upon 
Ilim,  or  he  was  a  spiritual  being  in  a  phantom  body; 
he  was  not  both.  One  class  of  Monarchians  took  the 
"  dynamical "  vi(;w,   that  Christ  was  a  man   full   of 

not  mean  that  the  Son  was  an  aeon,  or  Gnostic  emanation. 
Terlvllian  meets  this  objection  at  once  (/1(^.  Prax.  viii).  He 
says  we  must  not  reject  truth  because  Gnostics  advocate  it; 
but  this  remark  hardly  justifies  the  conclusion  of  llarnack  that 
"this  i«  again  a  sign  showing  that  the  Church  doctrine  is  modi- 
iied  Gnosticism"  (I.  01  fi).  Terlullian  says  of  this  going  forth 
of  the  !r>on:  "  The  fact  is,  heresy  has  rather  taken  it  from  truth 
in  order  to  mould  it  into  its  own  counterfeit."  He  appeals  at 
once  to  the  fact  that  the  Word  was  sent  forth  from  God,  quotes 
freely  from  the  New  Testament  in  proof,  and  says  we  must 
carefully  separate  the  Christ  of  the  Bible  and  what  is  involved 
in  His  Person  from  the  errors  of  the  IMonarchians. 

•  Cf.  Matter,  Kr\t.  Gesch.  d.  (rnosticismus.     Germ.    Trans. 
Heilbron,  1864.  Bd.  HI.  8.  'JSOf. 


by  Tradition,  Bible,  PhiloHophij,  Jlerestj. 


185 


divine  powers;  ))Ut  this  view  was  soon  succeeded  by 
the  more  plausible  theory  that  He  whs  u  tenii)orary 
but  real  incarnation  of  God.  The  Dynamic  party  be- 
gan with  Theodotus,  a  rationalist  and  unitarian;  it 
ended  with  Paul  of  Samosata,  who  again,  under  the 
influence  of  Origen,  applied  the  term  Logos  to  Ciirist, 
and  held  that  by  ethical  development  the  will  of  Jesus 
became  morally  one  with  the  Divine  Logos  or  Spirit, 
so  that  after  the  resurrection  he  could  be  called  (lod.' 
This  attempt  to  make  Jesus  grow  into  a  God,  as 
yEsculapius  or  Jupiter  did,  was  at  once  denounced  by 
the  Church  in  Rome  and  Antioch.  The  conviction  of 
Ignatius  and  Irenaeus — "  Christ   is  God  " — 'vas  now 

1  The  ethical  oneness  of  Jesus  with  God  was  declared  to  be  the 
highest  kind  of  union  with  the  Father.  Werner  says  {Ztft.  f. 
Kirchentjesch.  xiv.  II.  I.)  that  dynamical  Monarch ianisni  was 
deepened  in  ethical  nieaning  by  taking  up  the  Logos  idea,  not  as 
a  divine  person  but  as  an  impersonal  power,  connected  with 
the  man  Jesus  by  an  act  of  will.  His  mind  had  the  same  aim 
as  the  Divine  Mind.  And  "  this  etiiical  apprehension  of  the 
divine  character  of  Christ  stands  as  high,"  we  are  told,  "above 
the  current  religious  '  Physik,'  as  the  comnumion  of  soul  be- 
tween two  persons  stands  above  that  of  the  tlesh."  Here,  after 
the  RitschI  method,  dynamical  Monarchianism  is  set  forth  as 
true  Christianity.  The  term  "pliysics"  is  introduced  to  do- 
scribe  evangelical  theology  in  its  two  great  errors:  First  of  all 
the  holding  that  Christ  was  by  nature  as  well  as  by  will  one 
with  God;  and  second  in  maintaining  that  we  may  become  so 
one  with  God  in  holy  communion,  that  it  is  not  wrong  to  speak 
of  being  "partakers  of  the  divine  nature."  l)oth  these  are 
horrors  to  the  Kitschl  men — the  horrors  of  the  "  Logos  Chris- 
tology  and  of  Mysticism."  In  both  cases,  however,  as  can  J»e 
seen  in  Ilarnack's  Jlistori/  of  JJof/mn  atid  Uitschl's  (iincliichte 
des  Pietismus,  it  is  dogmatic  preconceptions  rather  than  historical 
considerations  that  lead  to  these  one-sided  views  of  Christ  and 
the  Verkehr  of  the  soul  with  God.     Werner  is  riglit   in  saying 


I* 

I     I 


m 


• -1 


■.!■  r 
V.';  -i 

M  ■■'■■■ 


f:i 


186 


Developinent  of  Chr'iHtoJog}/^ 


the  settled  belief  of  Christians  both  Ea^t  and  West. 
But  this  was  just  what  the  Modal  Monarchians  also 
laid  stress  upon.  They  were  religious  rather  than 
ethical  in  temper.  They  regarded  current  Chris- 
tology  as  wrong  because  too  subordinative;  and,  in 
making  Christ  identical  with  God,  gained  much 
sympathy  in  the  Church. 

As  soon,  however,  as  it  was  seen  that  the  personal 
Christ  was  lost,  the  defects  of  this  view  were  promptly 
condemned.  Tertullian  said  to  deny  the  Son  was  to 
deny  the  Father,  and  to  have  no  Father  and  Son  was  to 
destroy  the  whole  "plan  of  salvation'"  (^Adv.  Prax. 
xli.).     Dynamic  Monarchianism  made  Jesus  a  mere 

that  rationalistic,  and  not  religious  interest,  led  the  Dynam- 
ical MonarchianH  to  present  a  Christ  of  merely  human-moral 
development.  Ilarnack  is  also  abundantly  right  in  pointing  out 
that  the  appeal  to  the  Scriptures,  so  often  made  by  men  like 
Tertullian,  easily  led  the  Monarchians  into  absurdity  (I.  CIS). 
The  Gospel  of  John  was  unanswerable  in  sui/h  a  controversy. 

*  An  anonymous  Monarchian  (Eusebius  v.  20)  claimed  that 
all  early  Christians  held  this  view  of  Christ;  but  the  orthodox 
Christian  who  refers  to  his  contention,  at  once  replies  that  (1) 
the  Scriptures,  (2)  the  writings  of  the  early  Fathers,  as  well  as  (3) 
all  the  psalms  and  hymns  of  the  Church  contradicted  this  claim. 
In  them  OeoAo;'cirai  d  ;tP'<^rds;  "Christ  was  considered  God,'* 
and  the  Logos  of  God.  Loose  and  incomplete  statements  might 
be  made  about  Christ  (cf.  Irenaeus,  I.  10,  3);  but  whenever 
they  were  challenged  the  reply  came  clear  and  true.  Harnack 
says  {Pat.  Apost.  L  p.  126):  "It  is  well  known  that  the 
Apologists  and  Fathers  of  the  second  century,  who  flourished 
before  Irenaeus,  although  they  constantly  defended  the  Rule  of 
Faith,  yet  made  no  sure  distinction  between  the  Holy  Spirit 
and  the  preexistent  Christ.  But  in  controversies  with  those 
who  favored  Modalism  (180-250)  they  distinguished  Xoyoi  Oeov 
and  nvevna  Oeov  a6vyxvr<oi.^'  The  promptness  with  which 
Monarchianism  was  rejected  shows  how  foreign  it  was  felt  to  be. 


/'//  Tradition,  Bihle,  Philonophif,  Heresy. 


IS' 


im. 

d," 

ght 

jver 

lack 

I  the 

hed 

of 

lirit 

pae 

cov 

ich 
Ibe. 


prophet  and,  as  Atliana.siiiH  {Or.  r.  Ar.  \.  H)  niul  liasil 
(A}^.  Ixix. )8ai(], landed  ill  Jiuluisin  or  Deism. Modalisni, 
l)y  denying  the  existence  of  (jod  apart  from  man  in 
Christ,  or,  apart  from  the  npiiit  in  tlie  Church,  ran 
strongly  toward  Pantheism  (cf.  Pressens*',  1.  c.  120). 
Between  these  extremes  th<^  Cliurch  Christology  with 
somewhat  unsteady  steps  kept  on  its  middle  way.  It 
was  held  now  more  firmly  than  ever  tjiiit  Christ  was  both 
truly  Divine  and  ])ersonally  distinct  from  the  Father. 
Victor  of  Konie  interj)reted  tli«^  Rule  of  Faith  igainst 
Theodotus  to  mean  that  no  man  is  a  Ciiri.<tl*in  who 
denies  that  Christ  is  God.  I.oofs  th'i  ks  s-uch  a 
position  excluded  "  valua]>le})rimitiv('  Christian  ideas" 
(S.  51).  I  Jo  further  thinks  that  Modalisni  was  only 
a  r^  'taphysical  expression  of  the  religions  judgment 
of  Christ  held  hy  men  like  Ignatius.  It  was  lower 
philosophically  than  the  Logos  Christology,l)ut  liigher 
religiously.  Such  a  separation  of  reason  and  faith, 
however,  making  it  all  right  to  say  Christ  is  God 
devotionally,  and  all  wrong  to  call  Christ  Divine  in 
terras  of  history  and  intellect,  is  simj)ly  reading 
Kitschl's  theology  again  into  the  development  of 
Christology.  Kriiger,  a  writer  of  the  same  school, 
says  Monarchianism  failed  because  it  was  not  timely.' 
It  has  never  been  timely.  The  Ai)ostolic  and  post- 
Apostolic  Church  made  no  distinction  between  the 
Christ  of  prayer  and  the  Christ  of  thought.  Tlie 
Monarchians,  instead  of  having  a  more  religious  view 
of  Christ,  were  in  general  men  of  worldly  character.- 

1  Die  Bedeutung  des  Athanasius,  in  Tahr.  f.  Prot.  Tiieol., 
xvi.,  H.  iii. 

'  A  point  which  Harnack  greatly  overlooks  in  praising  tlicir 
Christology. 


11 


,i      : 


I 


Ui 


'  'V 


188 


Development  of  Chrifdohyjy^ 


The  New  Testament,  especially  the  writings  of  Paul  and 
John,  as  soon  as  brought  to  bear  upon  this  theory 
drove  it  from  the  field.*  The  Christian  consciousness 
at  once  took  offence  at  it.  And  its  advocates,  thonirh 
claiming  to  restore  primitive  Christianity,  showed  no 
power  of  propagandism.'^ 

Monarchianism  passed  away,  but  the  question  out 
of  which  it  gre^v — the  relation  of  Christ  to  God — was 
still  unanswered.  It  was  the  Alexandrian  school 
that  resumed  the  discussion,  and  Origen  especially 
who  now  moulded  the  thouc^ht  of  the  Church.  He 
felt  that  to  meet  the  Monarchian  altei'native,  of  Christ 
divine  only  in  power  or  else  identical  in  person  with 
the  Father,  the  Church  must  either  admit  that  Christ 
was  only  man  or  else  the  difference  between  the  Father 

1  Cf.  Ilarnack,  I.  S.  561,619;  and  Wendt,  1.  c.  S.  16. 

2  IIow  fruitless  the  attempt  is  to  trace  the  gradual  develop- 
ment of  a  Divine  Christ  in  the  early  Church  appears  in  the 
history  of  so  careful  a  scholar  as  Prof.  Allen  of  Harvard.  He 
thinks  the  Church  first  believed  in  the  Logos  as  a  Divine  attri- 
bute. Then  the  word  within  us  was  spoken  of  as  the  Word  of 
God  or  Son  of  God.  Next  this  subjective  word  M'as  made 
objective.  After  that  the  objective  was  regarded  as  Incarnate 
in  Jesus;  and  finally  He  was  considered  to  be  a  Divine  Deliv- 
erer. To  find  time  for  such  a  development,  Allen  must  put  the 
Fourta  Gospel  in  the  middle  of  the  second  century  and  run  in 
the  face  of  all  recent  criticism  on  that  question  {The  Unita- 
rian Jieview,  1889).  Equally  fruitless  is  the  attempt  of  Norton 
{iStatement  of  Jieasons,  3d.  Ed.,  Boston,  1859,  p.  94f.;  333f.) 
to  trace  the  Logos  Christology  to  Philo.  Harnack  admits  (1.  c. 
L  66.)  that  the  Logos  teachings  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  did  not  come 
from  Philo.  Norton  docs  not  venture  to  quote  the  early  litera- 
ture, but  refers  to  Clement  of  Alexandria  and  Augustine,  and 
then  quotes  the  Cambridge  Platonizers  as  proof  that  the  Chris- 
tian doctrine  of  the  Trinity  came  from  Greek  philosophy. 


hy  Tradition^  Bible,  Philosophy,  Ilcrcxy. 


189 


id 


and  Son  must  be  found  in  the  Beirnj:  of  God.  He 
pressed  in  the  latter  direction.  He  followed  Clenieiit 
in  exalting  the  love  and  Fatherhood  of  God.  Christ 
was  the  expression  of  the  life,  the  love  of  the  Father, 
as  well  as  His  creative  AYord.  From  this  point  of 
view,  and  with  reference  to  the  absolute  changeless- 
ness  of  Divine  relations,  Origen  elaborated  his  great 
thought  of  the  eternal  generation  of  the  Son.'  This 
idea  had  been  touched  by  Justin,  and  uttered  by 
Irenaeus,  but  now  was  clearly  taught,  and  without 
special  Church  action  passed  into  the  teachings  of 
theology.  Origen  described  Christ  as  6noov6io%  rw 
narpi-^  therefore  not  i\  ovk  ovtoov.  He  was  eternal,  and  it 
could  be  said  of  Him  oi.h  eany  ore  OVK  r/v.  Origen  first 
distih::ruished  the  words  ovdix  and  inoeTdcn,  to  make  the 
first  apply  to  the  one  divine  essence  and  the  second 
to  the  personal  mode  of  existence  of  Christ.^  He  thus 
brought  Christology  to  the  place  of  Homoousian 
Hypostasianism. 

But  the  subordination  element,  though  elevated 
by  Origen,  was  not  brought  into  harmonious  re- 
lations with  the  consubstantiality  of  Christ.  He 
exalted  the  causality  of  God;  Jehovah  was  sour(;e  of 
Christ,  as  the  torch  of  the  ray;  and  the  Son  proceeded 
from  the  Father  by  an  act  of  will.  He  was  God  but 
not  awrJ&eos  as  the  Father.  He  was  one  in  will  and  one 
in  essence  with  God.  Only  Origen's  double  use  of 
the  word  God,  and  his  view  of  emanation  within  the 
Godhead  enabled  him  (cf.  Thomasius  I.  S.  202)  to  com- 
bine these  ojiposing  ideas  of  Christ  as  God  and  Clirist 

•  In  Jercra.  Horn.  ix.  4. 

2  In  Ep.  ad  IM.  V.  :}00,  Lomtnatzsch  Ed. 

3  In  Jv  >.n.  ii.  6;  cf.  Sccberg,  S.  108. 


^Iii 


^i 


if 


■ « 


m 


\i 

im 


Si  f 


190 


Develojyment  of  ChristoJogy, 


as  product  of  God.*  But,  it  should  be  added,  it  was 
his  adherence  to  Scripture — "  My  Father  is  greater 
than  I,"  "None  is  good  save  one" — that  made  him 
teach  the  subordination  of  the  Son  "svithin  the  God- 
head and  not  merely  in  liis  earthly  life.- 

We  are  now  within  sight  of  tlie  council  of  Nica^u. 
which  will  be  noticed  in  another  connection.  The 
peculiar  philosophic  views  of  Origen — his  doctrine  of 
eternal  creation,  preexistence  of  souls,  extreme  free 
will  and  spiritual  resurrection — were  drop})ed  from 
Church  l)elief ;  but  liis  Christology  was  retained.  It 
was  not  necessary  to  give  up  all  his  theology  to  get 
rid  of  his  errors.  Dionysius  of  Home  corrected  Dion- 
ysius  of  Alexandria  for  pushing  the  subordination 
views  of   Origen   too  far  against  Sabellianism,  and 

^  Sohra  thinks  (p.  54  Eniilish  Translation)  that  the  Hellen- 
izing  theology  of  Origen  regarded  Christ  as  *'the  incarnation 
of  the  rational  law  (the  '  Logos '  of  the  philosophers)  that  works 
in  the  world,  its  governor  and  creator.  Christ  is  the  incarnate 
Law  of  Nature,  the  law  of  all  material,  or  of  all  spiritual  and 
moral  things."  He  concludes,  accordingly,  that  "As  the  ideal 
source  of  creation,  as  the  cosmic  principle — a  principle  which  is 
no  longer  a  unity,  but  contains  in  itself  the  multiplicity  of  the 
universe — Christ  is  of  necessity  a  divine  person  subordinate  to 
the  Father."  From  this  Hellenizing  of  Christianity  the  Church 
was  saved  by  Athanasius. 

2  Cf.  Bigg.  1.  c,  p.  181.  Gore  says:  <'  It  cannot  be  too  often 
emphasized  that  Origen's  errors — so  far  as  his  opinions  are  cer- 
tainly errors — were  mainly  due  to  an  overscrupulous  literalnesa 
in  the  interpretation  of  Holy  Scripture,  that,  for  instance,  his 
doctrine  that  the  Son  was  not  the  absolute  goodness,  as  He  was 
the  absolute  Wisdom,  was  due  to  his  interpretation,  more  literal 
than  true,  of  the  text,  "There  is  none  good  but  one,  that  is 
God"  {Dissertations  on  ISuhJects  Connected  with  the  Incarna- 
tion.    New  York,  1895,  p.  114). 


hij  Tradition^  Bille,  Philosophy^  Heresy. 


191 


18 


brought  him  back  to  both  Unity  and  Trinity  in  God. 
On  the  other  hand,  Methodius  of  Olympus  (d.  311) 
differed  from  Origen  in  teaching  that  Christ  was  be- 
gotten before  all  time,  but  "  after  the  beginningless 
beginning"  of  God.  He  expressed,  however,  rather 
the  indecisive  thoughts  of  a  man  like  Dlonysius  of 
Alexandria,  who  needed  only  to  be  sharply  questioned 
to  fall  into  more  definite  statements.  But  this  ex- 
change of  views  between  the  bishops  of  Rome  and 
Alexandria  shows  that  soon  after  the  death  of  Origen 
the  leading  minds  in  all  the  Church  were  agreeing 
upon  three  great  points  respecting  Christ:  first.  He 
was  of  the  same  substance  with  God;  seconu,  He  was 
])er.sonally  distinct  from  the  Father;  and  third.  He 
was  eternal.  Only  one  point  of  indecision  remained; 
that  was  the  question  of  Subordination,  which  Origen 
left  unsettled.  Lucian  of  Antioch,  the  teacher  of 
Arius,  adopted  the  Monarchianism  of  Paul  of  Samo- 
sata;  Christ  Avas  for  him  ethically  God.  Arius  went 
to  Alexandria  and  joined  this  Monarchianism  to  the 
subordination  elements  in  Oriijen's  theology-  And 
so,  as  Thomasius  says  (I.  211),  when  the  full  current 
of  Church  thought  ran  away  from  Subordination  and 
towards  Homoousiauism,  Arius  turned  in  the  opposite 
direction,  and  sought  to  develo[)  SuV)or(lination  })ack- 
wards  so  as  to  deny  the  true  divinity  of  Christ.  Christ 
equal  with  the  Father,  or  Christ  essentially  subject  to 
the  Father  was  the  remaining  inquiry. 

Before  leaving  the  school  of  Origen,  one  other  line 
of  thought  must  be  briefly  referred  to.  That  great 
theologian  not  only  led  the  Church  to  see  that  the 
relation  of  Father  and  Son  was  eternal — as  he  de- 
scribed it,  an  eternal  generation  of  the  Son;  he  also 


^ 


HH", 


w 


H 


I 


1  (^c) 

i.  >'  ^ 


Development  of  Chri-sfolot/}/, 


took  steps  toward  the  solution  of  the  further  inquiry 
into  the  relation  of  the  Divine  and  human  natures  in 
Jesus  Christ.*  He  approached  this  doctrine  from  the 
point  of  view  of  the  preiixistence  of  all  human  souls, 
which  he  doubtless  learned  from  Plato.  If  the  soul 
of  Jesus  preexisted  in  the  presence  of  God  before  it 
became  incarnate  in  the  man  Jesus,  and  if  the  Divine 
Logos  preexisted  from  all  eternity,  the  inquiry  arose, 
how  were  these  related  before  either  became  flesh  and 
dwelt  among  us.  Orisreu  explains  it  as  follows: 
The  Divine  Logos  created  all  things.  To  ''  His  ra- 
tional creatures  "  He  imparted  "  invisibly  a  share  of 
Himself"  (De  Prin.  ii.  H);  but  in  different  degrees 
according  to  the  love  which  each  soul  had  for  Him. 
There  was  one  soul,  that  of  which  Jesus  said,  "No 
man  shall  take  my  soul  (animam)  from  me,"  which 
became  "  through  love  inseparably  one "  with  the 
Divine  Logos  from  the  very  creation  (he  quotes 
I  Cor.  vi.  17).  By  means  of  this  soul — for  the  soul 
is  by  nature  intermediate  between  God  and  matter  — 
the  Divine  Christ  was  born  and  became  the  God-Man. 
He  can  be  called  the  Son  of  God  "  either  because  it 
(the  soul)  was  wholly  in  the  Son  of  God,  or  because 
it  received  the  Son  of  God  wholly  into  itself."  He 
compares  the  soul  in  the  Logos  to  iron  in  a  furnace, 
which  becomes  so  hot  that  it  impresses  us  as  Are 
rather  than  as  metal ;  it  becomes  "  God  in  all  that  it 
does,  feels  and  understands."  This  exaltation  of  the 
soul  of  Jesus  to  union  with  the  Divine  Logos  was  not 
arbitrary,  but  was  a  reward  for  its  virtues  (Ps.  xlv. 
7,  quoted).      Origeu  approaches  the  doctrine  of  the 

^  Be  Prin.  ii.  6;   C.    Cd.  iii.  41;   i.  60;  iv.  15.  Cf.  Patrick, 
Apology  of  Oriyen,  Edinburgh,  1892.  p.  188f. 


}>y  Tradition^  Bible ^  Philosophy^  Heresy. 


193 


use 
He 
ice, 
fire 
tit 
the 
not 
^Iv. 
the 

[ick, 


Communicatio  Idiomatum^  in  holding  that  both  the 
human  and  divine  natures  of  the  Lord  may  be  includ- 
ed in  the  title,  Son  of  God.  Hia  relation  of  the 
human  soul  of  Jesus  to  the  Divine  Logos  was  also 
analo2;ou3  to  that  of  the  "  Adoption  "  Christolosrv  in 
its  view  of  the  Son  to  the  Father.  This  infusion  of 
the  Divine  Logos  passed  also  to  the  body  of  Jesus,  so 
that  the  whole  Divine-human  personality  became  as 
it  were  one  being.  Origen  first  used  the  word 
OedvOpoaTco?,  OF  God-Mau.  The  supernatural  conception 
and  this  transforming  indwelling  of  the  Logos  of 
God  gradually  transfigured  Jesus,  till  at  the  resurrec- 
tion He  passed  into  the  full  spiritual  state  of  exist- 
ence. 

In  three  respects  at  least  was  this  view  of 
Origen  important:  First,  it  sharply  distinguished  the 
reasonable  soul  in  Jesus  Christ  from  the  Divine 
Logos;  second,  it  turned  attention  from  the  body  as 
point  of  union  between  the  human  and  the  Divine  to 
the  soul  as  the  place  of  meeting;  and,  third,  it  made 
the  bond  of  union  between  the  Son  of  Man  and  the 
Son  of  God  consist  in  love,  in  spiritual  fellowship. 
It  is  true  these  imijortant  ti  aths  were  built  upon  the 
erroneous  presuppositions  of  the  preexistence  of 
souls,  their  ante-natal  fill,  and  the  beginning  of  the 
incarn!  c  n  of  Jesus  in  a  previous  state;  but  the 
Church  did  get  from  Origen  a  clear  conception  of  n 
true,  human,  reasonable  soul  in  the  Saviour.  And 
this  conception  offered  standing  ground  for  rejecting 
later  errors  in  Christology.  Arianism,  which  taught 
that  the  Logos  took  the  place  of  the  rational  soul  in 
Jesus,  Apollinarianism,  which  put  the  Logos  in  place 
of  ihe  human  mind  in  Jesus,  as  well  as  Monophysitism, 


i  I 


194 


Development  of  Christology, 


which  merged  the  soul  of  Jesus  in  the  Logos,  and 
Nestorianism,  which  made  the  soul  of  Jesus  only 
"  conjoined  "  to  the  Divine  Logos,  were  all  anticipa- 
ted and  more  or  less  invalidated  by  the  teachings  of 
Origen.  The  Synod  of  Bostra  approved  of  Origen's 
Christology;  and  Eusebius  (vi.  33)  and  Socrates  (H. 
E.  iii.  7)  say  that  the  Christology  there  sot  forth  was 
but  "  an  exposition  of  the  mystic  tradition  handed 
down  by  the  Church."  These  Fathers  all  agreed  with 
Origen  (De  Prin.  ii.  6;  iv.  30ff.)  that "  the  thoughts  " 
of  theologians  on  these  subjects  were  of  value  only 
as  they  could  be  '•  proven  from  the  Holy  Scriptures." 


71 


I  i  I 


LECTURE  IV. 

^af^ation  an^  connected  l^.ro^it^,  an  inaDoqul  .ioto  of 
^m.  a  ^.fccti&.  t^corp  of   Jr.o.t^iff,  anD  t§.  con^.. 
qu^Tjf  3roTx>t^  of  fe^afim,  ^ac.r^of a Pbm,  and 
4«cclicbn?  in   i§c   (Jtarfp    C^urc^. 


105 


' 


1:1 


i"!r 


"Apud  Ciceronem  et  Platonem,  aliosquc  cjusmodi  scrip- 
tores,  multa  sunt  acute  dicta,  et  leniter  caieutia,  sed  in  iis  om- 
nibus hoc  non  invenio,  Venite  ad  me  (Matt.  vii.  28).    Augustine. 


"The  Spirit  of  Romanism  is  substantially  the  Spirit  of  Hu- 
man Nature."     Whately.     Errors  of  liomanism^  1830.  p.  20. 


Pi 


\L 


'■f 

m 


"  Indulgentia  perpetua  pro  vivis  et  defunctis."     Inscription 
over  the  Church  of  S.  Maria  Maggiori  and  others  in  Rome. 


"  Ich  bin  dem  Ablass  und  alien  Papisten  entgegen  gewcsen, 
aber  niit  keiner  Gewalt.  Ich  babe  allcin  Gottes  Wort  getrie- 
ben,  gcpredigt  und  geschrieben." 

Luther.     Second  sermon  after  leaving  the  Wartburg. 


"  O  Christe,  Fili  Dei,  liberator  clementissime,  qui  toties 
populum  ab  angustiis  liberasti,  libera  nos  raiscros  ab  hac  Baby- 
lonica  Antichristi  '^aptivitate,  ab  hypocrisi  ejus,  tyrannide  et 
idolatria."    Servel  aS.     Bestitutio. 


106 


LECTURE  IV. 

Imperfect  apprehension  of  the  divine  ciirist  in 
his  work  of  salvation,  and,  connected  there- 
with, an  inadequate  view  of  sin,  a  defective 
theory  of  free-will,  and  the  consequent 
growth  of  legalism,  sacerdotalism  and 
asceticism  in  the  early  catholic  church. 

It  will  he  well  for  the  student  at  the  outset  of  this 
Lecture  to  remember  that  the  soteriology  of  the  Greek 
Church,  so  far  as  it  was  biblical,  followed  especially 
the  teachings  of  St.  John.  With  the  Fourth  Gospel, 
it  regarded  Christianity  as  summed  up  in  two  princi- 
ples: ( 1 )  Jesus  Christ  the  Divine-human  bringer  of 
eternal  life,  and  (2)  man  saved  by  sharing  that  divine 
life  through  union  with  Christ  (John  xx.  81 ).  Corres- 
ponding to  this  conception  of  the  gospel,  it  saw  the  chief 
enemies  of  man  to  be  the  devil,  the  Antichrist,  from 
whom  the  Lord  delivered  his  saints,  and  death,  which 
was  swallowed  up  in  the  life  and  immortality  'Drought 
to  light  by  the  gospel.  Athanasius  loves  to  present 
the  work  of  Christ  as  God  becoming  human  that  man 
might  become  divine.  Here  the  highest  thoughts  of 
Christian  revelation  are  reached;  for  only  those  who 
know  all  the  elements  of  humbler  doctrine  can  safely  seek 
to  become  partakers  of  the  Divine  Nature.  It  is  a  true 
instinct  which  sees  in  the  Johannine  writings  a  view  of 
the  gospel,  that  presupposes  the  plain  narratives  of 

197 


(f1 

'1     *' 

!i  ■■■■ 

.:  i 

H 


u 


t  i 


m 


i 


W 


198 


Defective   View  of  Iiedeiiiption^ 


the  Synoptists,  and  the  doctrine  of  justification  hy  faith 
which  Paul  preached.  It  was  just  here,  however,  that 
the  early  Church  made  her  first  great  mistake.  She 
saw  clearly  enough  that  the  end  and  aim  of  Christian- 
ity was  l)le8sed  oneness  with  God  through  Jesus  Christ; 
but  she  failed  to  see  adequately  that  the  true  wa}'^  to 
this  Divine  Communion  was  through  personal  justify- 
ing faith  in  Christ,  that  faith  which  works  by  love  and 
purifies  the  heart.  Not  that  faith  was  lost  sight  of;  it 
was  only  more  and  more  obscured  by  its  own  symbols, 
by  other  virtues,  especially  hope  and  love,  and  by  the 
good  works  which  were  its  fruits.  This  obscuring  and 
limiting  of  justification  by  faith  appear  at  once  when 
we  observe  the  baptism  and  admission  of  converts  into 
the  post- Apostolic  Church.^     Barnabas  says:    "Bap- 

*  Baptismal  regeneration  could  find  support  in  the  words  of 
Jesus  to  Micodemus  (John  iii.  5),  and  in  His  great  commission 
(Matthew  xxviii.  19,  20),  which  made  baptism  the  turning  point 
from  paganism  to  keeping  the  commandments  of  Christ.  The 
gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit  was  also  associated  with  baptism  (Acts 
X.  47;  I  Cor.  vi.  ll;xii.  13).  It  was  a  sign  of  union  with  Christ 
(Gal.  iii.  27).  Especially  noticeable  is  the  connection  with  the 
death  of  Jesus,  which  all  felt  was  the  key  to  salvation.  The 
Lord  had  called  His  own  death  a  baptism  (Luke  xii.  50;  Mk.  x. 
38,  39);  and  Paul  declared  (Romans  vi.  3)  that  Christians  were 
baptized  into  the  death  of  Christ.  This  last  statement  sank 
deep  into  the  heart  of  the  Church  and  was  widespread  early  (cf. 
JieschjAussercanonisch.  Pandleltei'te  zu  den Evangelien.  II Heft 
zu  Matt.  V.  Mark.  Leipzig,  1894.  S.  416).  Ignatius  said  {Eph. 
xviii)  Jesus  "was  born  and  baptized,  that  by  Ills  passion  He 
might  purify  the  water."  Then  followed  confused  ideas  as  to 
how  the  water  in  baptism  might  be  connected  with  regeneration. 
Tertullian  said  the  Holy  Spirit  sanctified  it  (Z>e  bap.  iv. ;  De 
Paen.  vi.).  The  body  was  identified  with  the  soul  so  as  to  be 
defiled  by  it;  hence,  both  forming  one  personality,  both  were 


Legalism,  Sacerclotali-wiy  Asceticiwi. 


199 


tism  bears  remission  of  sins"  (xi.  1 ).  Hermas  says 
of  converts:  "  They  go  down  into  the  water  dead,  and 
come  up  alive  "  (6^</;<.  ix.  10,  2).'  Others  speak  in 
the  same  way,  teaching  essentially  baptismal  regenera- 
tion. All  past  sins  were  washed  away;  the  grace  of 
God  was  full  and  free  in  this  ordinance;  and  man  be- 
came a  new  creature.  Henceforth  he  must  lead  a 
life  of  virtue,  and  merit  the  approval  of  his  Lord. 

guilty,  and  the  holy  washing  of  the  one  could  effect  the  sancti- 
fication  of  the  other.  Cyprian  introduced  tlio  prioHt  as  the  agent 
in  sanctifying  the  water  of  baptism  {Ep.  Ixxii).  Thus  the  body 
and  soul  were  so  identified  that  purifying  one  cleansed  the  other; 
and  the  Holy  Spirit  and  the  water  were  so  identified  that  wash- 
ing with  the  one  conveyed  regeneration  by  the  other  (of.  Ire- 
naeus,  III,  I7f.;  V,  15,  .3;  Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  Catech.  iii.  3). 
This  confusion  of  mind  and  matter,  this  mystical  washing  of  the 
Boul  was  possible  because,  as  Hatch  has  pointed  out  {Injtucnce 
of  Greek  ideas,  p.  19),  "they  are  an  outflow  of  the  earlier  con- 
ceptions of  matter  and  spirit  as  varying  forms  of  a  single  sub- 
stance.'' Spirit  and  matter  are  for  us  utterly  separate;  for  the 
ancients,  the  one  was  but  a  very  subtle  form  of  the  other.  Hence 
what  we  now  call  symbolical  were  for  the  earlier  believers  often 
identical.  Similar  philosophical  speculation  underlay  the  foun- 
dations of  the  scholastic  theory  of  transubstantiation.  Because 
the  substance  and  the  accidents  of  bread  and  wine,  body  and 
blood  could  be  thought  apart,  it  was  possible  to  hold  that  the 
phenomena  of  bread  and  wine  could  rest  upon  the  substance  of 
the  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord. 

^  Hermas  taught  that  forgiveness  by  repentance  ended  at 
baptism  (M.  iv.  3).  But  he  elsewhere  proclaimed  that  through 
his  preaching,  by  way  of  exception,  a  second  repentance  was 
granted  the  Church  (Vis.  ii,  2:  Maml.  iv.  4,  4:  ISim.  viii.  11, 
1).  This  second  repentance  was  matter  of  special  revelation  to 
him;  and  was  not  to  be  regarded  as  an  ordinary  grace.  The 
Church,  however,  moved  on  in  the  line  of  Hermas' exception  till 
it   became   well-nigh   the  rule.     From    now   on,  tw  >  classes  of 


'  nil' 

;  1 
; 

1' 

■ 

m 


200 


Defective   Vie  id  of  Jieilemption, 


m 


1  'I 


Innocent  as  tlicse  views  niic^ht  appear,  they  really 
involved  what  Paul  calls  a  fall  from  walvation  by  grace 
into  salvation  l)y  works.  Man's  life  was  cleft  in  twain, 
and  the  work  of  Christ  divided.  Bef<u'e  baptism  man 
received  all  through  faith  and  sovereign  grace;  l)ut 
after bajitism  he  received  all  through  merit,  good  deeds, 
and  the  general  mercy  of  God.  The  part  of  man's 
life  before  baptism  was  covered  by  the  atonement  of 
Christ;  his  lif(5  after  baptism  must  be  defended  by  his 
own  virtue,  the  sacraments  and  the  example  of  Christ. 
In  other  words,  Christ  was  only  a  partial  Redeemer. 
Part  of  man's  experience  was  redeemed  l)y  Christ;  the 
rest  of  it  the  Christian  must  redeem  for  himself.  Christ 
w^as  the  author,  but  not  the  finisher  of  our  faith. 

Such  dualism  left  the  domain  of  human  sanctifica- 
tion  only  indirectly  relatedtotheredemj)tion of  Christ; 
and  this  was  the  field  in  which  grew  up,  naturally,  de- 
fective conceptions  of  sin,  legalism,  sacramentarianism, 
priestcraft,  and  all  the  excesses  of  monkish  devotion. 
The  Apostolic  Fathers  show  in  growing  degree  the  in- 
fluence of  these  foreign  ideas. ^     They  echo  the  teach- 


faults  were  distinguished  (cf.  Tertullian,  Do  Pud.  x.  20), 
daily  defects,  such  as  the  lesser  sius  of  anger,  prevarication,  curs- 
ing, and  deUrta  mortidiu  (I  John  v.  10),  such  as  murder  or 
idolatry.  Alms  and  other  good  works  could  atone  for  the  first; 
but  the  second  excluded  from  the  Church.  The  drift,  however, 
was,  further,  toward  repentance  and  good  works  covering  all 
sins;  till,  in  the  time  of  Callixtus  in  Rome,  submission  to  Church 
authority  gained  a  i>lace  for  second  repentance  for  the  worst 
sins. 

^  Pfleiderer  acutely  observes  that  if  original  Christianity 
were  what  Ititschl  thinks  it  was,  with  God  only  love,  sin  only 
ignorance,  and  the  kingdom  of  heaven  only  an  ethical  society, 
the  Apostolic  Church  would  have  a  very  short  step  to  take,  and 


I     f  ■ 

'I 


!       i,'l 


^t; 


•St 


Leijaliism^  Sacerdotalitim,  Asceticism. 


201 


ingsof  the  Apostles,  especially  of  Paul  and  John,  hut 
the  New  Testament  thought  is  ever  hanipcrcil  in  their 
view  of  it  ])y  a  gentle  IMoralisni  or  Legalism,  whicli 
adds  something  to  faith  in  justitioation  and  unduly 
exalts  good  works.  Clement  says:  "  Through  faitli  we 
are  justified"  (xxxv.),  and  again:  "  By  works  we  are 
just"  (//a).  By  faith  he  did  not  mean  solely  personal 
union  to  Christ,  but  also  knowledge  of  Christ\s  law 
and  obedience  to  it.  Icjnatius  savs  that  faith  and  love 
unite  to  form  the  new  man  (^Kpli.  xx;  S/tii/r.  y\.), 
where  meritorious  love  shares  with  faith  the  founda- 
tion of  the  Ciiristian  life.  By  faith  he  understands 
rather  a  conviction  of  the  trutii  of  God  and  confidence 
in  Christ  than  appropriation  of  the  finished  work  of 
Christ,  as  Paul  taught.  Barnal).'is  calls  the  commands 
of  Christ  "  the  ue\ /  law"  (ii.  0),  which  is  a  "  law  of 
liberty,"  an  '  the  keeping  of  which  is  "  a  ransom  for 
thy  sins"  (xix.  10).  The  Church,  he  taught,  took 
the  place  of  Israel  as  the  true  covenant  peo])le;  hence 
faith  in  Christ  brings  the  convert  under  the  new  law, 
and  puts  a  hope  of  the  kingdom  in  his  heart.'    Polycarp, 

need  very  little  help  from  Ilellehism,  to  fall  into  the  moral  ism 
which  Ilarnaek  and  others  bo  groatly  deplore  (cf.  Jilble  Ground 
of  liitschCs  Theolofiy,  in  Juhrh.  f.  Prot.  Theoh*(jie,\\\.  \\.  I.), 
In  this  essay  Pfleiderer  shows  the  violent  and  arhitrary  iiielhotl 
employed  by  Kitschl  to  extort  his  Dogmatics  from  the  Bible. 

1  Barnabas  Jinew  that  to  become  a  Christian  was  "  to  have 
the  soul  of  children,"  to  be  born  again,  to  liave  Christ  in  us, 
''manifested  in  the  flesh  to  dwell  in  us,"  and  make  us  "a  holy 
temjdc  unto  the  Lord  "  (^xvi.).  Ho  knows  that  this  new  life  was 
ptirchased  on  the  cross,  for  Jesus  offered  "  the  vessel  of  His 
spirit  a  sacrifice  for  our  sins."  He  gave  "  His  flesh  for  tiie  sins 
of  my  new  ])eople,"  who  took  the  place  of  Israel.  He  was  the 
scapegoat.     But   the   application  of  Christ's  suffering  was  that 


! 


w 


202 


Defective  Vieiv  of  Medemption^ 


like  Barnabas,  gives  sin-atoning  merit  to  alms,  and 
Hermas  writes:  "Thou  shalt  live  if  thou  keep  my 
commandments"  (^Man.  iv.  2). 

Back  of  all  this  moralism  and  self -redemption,  there 
lay  of  course  the  work  of  Christ.  Clement  says:  "The 
blood  of  Christ,  being  shed  for  our  salvation,  won  for 
the  whole  world  the  grace  of  repentance  "  (vii.).  And 
again:  "We  being  called  through  His  will  in  Christ 
Jesus,  are  not  justified  through  ourselves  or  through  our 
own  wisdom  or  understanding  or  piety  or  works,  which 
we  wrought  in  holiness,  but  through  faith,  whereby  the 
Almighty  Father  justified  all  men  that  have  been  from 
the  beginning"  (xxxii.).  Here  is  a  plain  reproduction 
of  Pauline  teachings;  hence  the  view  of  Ritschl  is  ex- 
treme which  rejects  an  objective  atonement  as  part  of 
Clement's  gospel  (1.  c.  S.  29).  Christ  ^^?.'vii  "  His 
life  for  our  life  "  (xlix.);  but  Clement  sees  Him  as  our 
High  Priest  with  only  our  gifts  to  offer,  and  regards 
the  gift  of  "immortal  knowledge"  as  an  especially  im- 

**  they  who  desire  to  see  Me,  and  to  attain  unto  ray  Kingdom, 
must  lay  hold  on  Me  through  tribulation  and  affliction  "  (vii.). 
"They  who  set  their  hopes  on  Him  (that  is,  Jesus  on  the  cross) 
shall  live  forever"  (viii.).  Here  the  heart  of  the  matter  is  ob- 
scured, and  personal  faith  in  Christ  set  aside  by  an  imitation  of 
His  sufferings  for  us,  or  a  hope  of  immortality  through  Him. 
He  says  "there  are  three  dogmas  (ordinances)  of  the  Lord  for 
us"  (i.);  and  they  are.  Lope  of  life,  which  is  the  beginning  and 
end  of  our  faith,  righteousness,  and  love.  Here  he  falls  back 
into  his  view  that  Christianity  is  a  new  covenant  taking  the 
place  of  the  old  covenant  made  with  Israel  (iv.  xiv.).  We  enter 
it  by  faith  in  Jesus;  and  this  faith  produces  hope,  which  seals 
the  covenant  upon  our  hearts  (iv.).  The  sufferings  of  Christ 
gained  for  us  both  "forgiveness  of  sins,"  and  "renewal "of 
nature  (vi.);  but  Barnabas  cannot  relate  these  things  directly  to 
free,  justifying  faitL. 


Legalism^  Sacerdotalism^  Ascei  'cism. 


203 


portant  part  of  Christ's  work.  Barnabas  regards* the 
death  of  Christ  as  procuring  for  us  forgiveness  of  sins 
(v.  1).  But  he  does  not  know  how  to  connect  the 
sinr  ^  with  that  death.  He  says,  "  hoping  in  the  Name 
(of  Christ)  we  become  new  "  (xvi.) ;  then  he  goes  on  to 
present  our  union  with  God  in  a  moralistic  way,  as  His 
dwelling  in  us  by  His  word  and  ordinances  and  doc- 
trine. Hermas  tries  to  connect  the  new  Law  with  the 
Gospel  by  saying:  "The  Law  is  the  Son  of  God 
preached  unto  the  ends  of  the  earth";  yet  he  seems  to 
think  that  true  faith  and  true  works  miglu  exist  apart. 
Ignatius  especially  set  forth  Christianity  as  the  life  of 
Christ  in  man's  soul.^  The  bond  of  union  with  Christ 
is  faith,  which  shows  itself  in  love.^     The  Gospel  is 

^  Eph.    ix.  2;  X.  11;  xv.  3:  Mag.  vii.  12. 

2  Ignatius  echoes  Paul,  saying  (Eph.  xviii.):  **My  spirit  is 
made  an  offscouring  for  the  cross,  which  is  a  stumbling-block 
to  the  unbeliever  but  salvation  and  life  to  us."  He  regards  the 
work  of  Christ  as  a  gift  of  life,  immortality  and  deliverance  to 
us  through  His  cross  and  passion  {Eph.  xix,  xx;  3 fag.  ix.). 
This  last  is  central.  He  says:  "Jesus  Christ  died  for  us, 
that  believing  on  His  death,,  ye  might  escape  death  "  {Trull,  ii.). 
Hence  the  view  of  Von  der  GcUz,  that  Ignatius  lays  stress  upon 
the  resurrection  and  not  upon  the  death  of  Christ  is  questiona- 
ble. Lightfoot  maintains  that  for  Ignatius,  the  passion  of  our 
Lord  was  "the  one  central  doctrine  of  the  faith"  {Comment,  on 
Eph.  Inscrip.).  The  cross  was  ever  before  his  eyes.  He  did  not 
grasp  all  that  the  death  of  Christ  meant,  but  of  its  supreme  im- 
portance he  was  fully  conscious.  In  opposition  to  heretics,  he 
said,  "but  as  for  me  my  charter  is  Jesus  Christ,  the  inviolable 
charter  is  His  cross  and  His  death  and  His  resurrection,  and 
faith  through  Ilim"  {Phil.  viii.).  Through  faith  Christiana 
were  "  nailed  on  the  cross  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  in  flesh 
and  in  spirit";  and  adds  "  of  which  fruit  are  we — that  is,  of 
His  most  blessed  passion"  {Smyr.  i.).     lleresy  meant  departure 


n-  ''-'iitf 


\i 


204 


Defective  View  of  JRedernption^ 


i' 


I 


l|Mi:l 


"  the  perfection  of  immortality  {Phil.  ix.  2)  compared 
with  the  hopes  of  the  Old  Testament.  But  even  Igna- 
tius had  no  such  idea  of  sin  and  the  need  of  expia- 
tion aswouldlookto  the  full  atonement  of  Christ.  The 
fact  that  he  put  next  to  his  love  for  Christ  the  Church 
and  submission  to  her  officers  in  discipline  and  the 
distribution  of  sacraments,  shows  rising  Ecclesiasticism. 
He  does  build  the  new  Christian  life  upon  forgiveness, 
and  forgiveness  he  traces  to  the  cross  of  Christ;  but 
of  the  doctrine  of  justification  which  joins  man's 
sins  to  the  mercy  of  God  in  Christ,  Ignatius  has  no 
clear  conception.  It  means  for  him  moral  righteous- 
ness, not  the  imputed  merits  of  the  liedeemer.  These 
Fathers  everywhere  teach  that  Christ  was  the  Re vealer 
of  God  and  the  Redeemer  of  man ;  they  connect  this 
revelation  and  redemption  very  closely  with  Christ's 
cross  and  passion ;  but  they  do  not  know  how  to  inter- 
pret the  sacrifice  of  Christ.  Ritschl  thinks  they  failed 
here  because  they  lacked  the  knowledge  of  Old  Testa- 
ment sacrifices  necessary  to  understand  Paul.  But 
these  men  were  not  coni^cious  of  such  failure.  They 
took  for  granted  that  they  knew  what  the  oifering  of 
Christ,  His  blood,  His  sufferings  meant.  They  took 
for  granted  that  their  hearers  knew  the  same  thing, 
without  going  back  to  the  Old  Testament,  or  e^^en  ex- 


from  the  Passion  (Phil.  iii.).  He  connects  forgiveness  with 
the  cross  of  Christ  (against  Harnack  I.  695),  and,  on  the  ground 
of  this  forgiveness  for  Christ's  sake,  heseesfaitn  and  love  grow, 
working  a  transformation  of  the  Christian  into  the  likeness  of 
Christ.  But  he  nowhere  states  Paul's  doctrine  of  justification  by 
faith  alone.  Ci.  Phil.  viii.  2;  Zahn,  Iffnatius  von  Antioch)e}i, 
1873,  S.  405;  and  Behm,  Ztft.f.  Kirchl.  Wiss.  u.  Kirch.  Leben. 
1886.  S.  296. 


Legalism^  Sacerdotalism^  Asceticism. 


205 


pounding  the  New.  The  frequent  references  to  the 
blood  of  Christ  and  the  cross^  are  much  more  than  fos- 
sil phrases  left  by  once  living  conceptions.  In  view 
of  these  facts,  the  explanation  of  Behni  seems  more 
probable,  that  these  Gentile  Fathers  unconsciously- 
transferred  current  ideas  respecting  sacrifice  to  the 
offerinc:  of  Christ.-  The  blood  of  the  sacrifice  was  re- 
garded  by  the  heathen  as  removing  the  guilt  of  sin 
when  sprinkled  on  the  sinner,  bestowing  regeneration, 
and  giving  eternal  union  with  God.^     But  especially 

1  Cf.  Clem.  Rom.  xxi.  6;  xlix.  0;  Ignat.  ^ph.  i;  Smyr.  1; 
Barn.  viii. 

2  Ztft.  f.  h.  Wiss.  u.  k.  Lehen.  1886,  S.  295f.  This  view 
does  not  directly  o])pose  that  of  Ritschl,  but  adds  to  it.  The 
ignorance  of  the  Old  Testament  may  not  have  been  so  great  as 
he  supposes;  and  other  motives  may  have  led  to  a  conscious  neg- 
lect of  the  Jewish  views  of  sacrifice.  Philo  was  very  familiar 
with  the  Old  Testament,  yet  did  not  explain  sacrifices  and  Legal- 
ism as  found  in  Jewish  teachings;  but,  led  by  ])hilosophy  and 
allegory,  gave  them  quite  a  different  application.  Ritschl  says 
the  Legalism  of  the  Apostolic  Fathers  must  be  .  ?sted  first  of  all 
"  by  the  significance  which  they  attach  to  the  death  of  Christ" 
(^Entstehung,  S.  269).  That  is  true:  and  yet  there  might  be 
great  knowledge  of  the  Old  Testament  without  the  power  to 
grasp  Paul's  doctrine  of  Christ's  sacrifice.  The  sacrifice  of  a 
man,  the  offering  of  the  Messiah,  were  ideas  foreign  to 
many  minds  full  of  Old  Testament  teachings.  Paul  seems  to 
have  found  his  Jewish  brethren  quite  as  unable  to  hoM  on  to 
the  true  view  of  Christ's  death  as  were  his  Gentile  converts. 
Legalism  and  Moralism  overran  Jewish  Christianity  just  as 
swiftly  and  surely  as  they  overtook  that  of  the  Gentile 
churches.  Justin  says  that  the  Gentile  Christians  were  both 
"more  numerous  and  more  true"  than  those  from  the  Jews  and 
Samaritans  (-Ijt).  I,  lii). 

^  Cf.  Anrich,  Das  antike  Jfi/sterienwesen  hi  setnem  EIuJIkss 
auf  d.   Chi'istenthum.     GOttingen,  1894.  S.  15,  53. 


206 


I! 


W^ 


:ll 


Defective   View  of  Medemptlon, 


the  hero,  the  patriot  offering  himself  for  his  people 
might  be  taken  to  explain  the  sacrifice  of  Christ.  Cle- 
ment speaks  of  kings  "  by  their  own  blood"  delivering 
their  fellow- citizens  (Iv.).  Barnabas  makes  Christ  die 
as  King  "for  the  sins  of  His  new  people"  (vii.  5). 
Gentile  thought  would  regard  Christ,  the  Captain 
of  our  salvation,  dying  for  His  people,  as  having  the 
value  of  an  expiatory  offering.  Such  heroes  were 
called  itspjipjj/jara^  and  HaOdpuara  b/  which  guilt  was  re- 
moved. With  such  a  vievr  the  Old  Testament  sacrifi- 
cial types  would  have  little  connection  in  the  minds  of 
these  Fathers.  Jewish  atonement  meant  a  covering 
of  sin  here  and  now ;  the  Greek  atonement  meant  deliv- 
erance from  sins  of  other  days.  This  mode  of 
thought  would  lead  naturally  to  the  position  that  the 
death  of  Christ  acted  retrospectively  in  blotting  out 
sins  that  were  past.  The  hero  freed  the  people  from 
some  tyrant  or  danger;  but  once  free  they  must  take 
up  the  work  of  their  own  defence.  This  is  the  view 
taken  of  Christ's  work  of  deliverance,  especially  as  we 
find  it  elaborated  by  a  man  like  Origen,  to  show  how 
Christ  our  King  met  and  overthrew  our  great  enemy 
the  Devil."  Such  deliverance  naturally  ends  with  the 
hero's  death;  hence  perhaps  the  reason  why  the  Apos- 


^  Cf.  Ignatius,  of  himself,  ^ph.  xviii;  just  as  Paul  used  both 
terms  of  himself.  He  was  "the  filth  of  the  world,"  he  was  also 
the  '  'offscouring  of  all  things  "  for  Christ's  sake  and  the  Church 
(I  Cor.  iv.  13). 

2  Origen  says  the  disciples  recognized  the  analogy  between  a 
patriot  dying  for  his  country  and  Jesus  dying  for  His  people. 
He  says:  "that  the  voluntary  dying  of  one  just  man  for  the 
common  weal  has  power  to  drive  off  evil  spirits  which  create 
pestilence  and  kindred  evils,  is  probably  a  law  inherent  in  the 


Legalism,  Sacerdotalism,  Asceticism. 


207 


e 


tolic  Fathers  cannot  connect  anything  that  Christ  did 
after  His  crucifixion — His  resurrection,  His  high- 
priestly  reign — with  His  work  of  atonement.  ^  Such 
a  retroactive  view  would  also  very  easily  explain  the 
idea  that  Christ's  atonement  covered  only  sins  commit- 
ted before  conversion  and  baptism.  The  unique 
value  which  these  Fathers  saw  in  the  death  of  Christ 
was  that  it  took  place  according  to  the  will  of  God', 
that  it  was  a  Divine  plan  for  renewing  Humanity^, 
that  it  was  foretold  and  fixed  by  prophecy,  and 
that  it  was  actually  realized  in  the  sufferings  of  Christ. 
The  obedience  of  Jesus  unto  death  and  the  declaration 
of  God  made  the  sacrifice  of  the  cross  a  sacramental 
act  of  objective  value  for  men  like  Clement  and  Igna- 
tius. Repentance  found  in  it  pardon  for  sin ;  hence 
the  sacrifice  of  Christ  was  regarded  from  the  point  of 
view  of  its  effects  upon  the  believer  rather  than  from 
tliat  of  its  relations  to  God.  Here  was  the  great  limit 
to  the  Moralism  which  was  creeping  in;  for  so  long  as 
the  pardoned  man  felt  that  his  relation  to  a  gracious 
God  depended  upon  his  relation  to  the  death  of  Clirist, 
and  that  his  new  life  sprang  from  the  sacrifice  of  the 
Lord,  so  long  must  Legalism,  which  is  self -redemption, 
be  bounded  by  the  thought  that  vital  union  with  God 
is  inseparable  from  the  death  of  Christ  (Behm  1.  c). 

nature  of  things,  in  accordance  with  certain  principles  of  a  mys- 
terious order,  hard  for  the  multitude  to  grasp."  C  Cel.  i.  31. 
Cf.  Patrick's  remarks  on  this,  The  Apology  of  Ori(icn.  Edin- 
burgh. 1892.  p.  229f ;  and  Behm's,  1.  c. 

1  See   Ritschl,  1.   c.  S.  280,290;  and  Von  Eugclhardt,  Justin 
der  J/.,  S.  395. 

2  Clem.  Rom.   xlix.  G;    Barnab.  vii.  3,  5;  xii.  1,  2. 

3  Ignatius,  Eph.  xviii.  2;  xx.  1. 


m 


n 
m 


!■■ 


w 

'i 

Ms 

i 

m^ 

t'l- 

1 

1 

1 

208 


Defective   View  of  Redemption, 


But,  on  the  other  hand,  because  the  atonement  was 
not  grasped  as  an  ever-present,  ever-effcacious  source 
of  pardon  and  life,  the  post-baptismal  iife  was  largely 
given  over  to  salvation  by  merit  and  good  works.* 

When  we  pass  from  the  Apostolic  Fathers  to  the 
Apologists,  we  find  wider- reaching  conditions  and  con- 
siderations, which  led  them  to  present  the  gospel  in 
more  direct  relations  to  pagan  thought.  They  natu- 
rally make  prominent  the  things  which  Christianity 
held  in  common  with  Hellenism  (and  Judaism). 
Hence  they  speak  much  of  one  God,  and  religion  as 
the  perfection  of  ethics.  Christ  is  the  Divine  Teacher, 
and  the  Christian  is  the  ideal  philosopher  or  theolo- 
gian. All  the  culture  and  wisdom  of  Greece  were  re- 
garded as  a  dim  foreshadowing  of  Christ,  the  fullness 
of  the  Godhead  bodily. 

But  this  very  world  of  Greek  ideals,  which  prepared 
so  many  to  accept  Christ  as  the  Divine  Logos  Incar- 
nate, became  for  multitudes  a  stumbling  block  when 
they  heard  of  sin,  regeneration,  and  redemption  at  the 
foot  of  the  cross.  The  Greeks  as  a  people  never  took 
life  seriously;    they  were  naturally  Epicureans.     In 

1  Harnack  is  right  in  saying  (Ztft.f.  Th.  ti.  Kirche,  1891,  2) 
that  post-Apostolic  sources  are  about  unanimous  in  teaching 
that  man  is  justified  by  faith  and  deeds  of  love.  lie  refers 
especially  to  Clement  of  Rome  and  Hermas.  As  to  the  latter, 
Zahn  {Der  Ilirte,  S.  189f.),  however,  does  not  agree.  These 
Fathers  put  faith  at  the  acme  of  their  thoughts,  but  it  was  not 
regarded  as  complete  in  itself  as  the  saving  doctrine  for  man. 
It  included  rather,  Harnack  says,  obedience,  knowledge  and 
hope.  It  could  be  thought  apart  even  from  love.  Love  was  its 
natural  companion;  but  Paul's  view  of  true  faith  inevitably 
'vorking  by  love  was  not  fully  grasped. 


! 


Legalism^  Sacerdotalism^  Asceticism. 


2C9 


ii 


,2) 

Fers 

ter, 

lese 

not 

Ian. 

md 

its 

,ly 


like  manner,  the  Greek  Church  never  saw  the  heinous- 
ness  of  sin,  and  the  need  of  sovereign  grace  in  Christ, 
as  did  the  Latin  Church  through  Augustine.  Barna- 
bas is  the  only  post- Apostolic  man  who  speaks  de- 
cidedly of  the  new  birth  as  the  starting  point  in  Chris- 
tianity (see  Ritschl,  S.  315).  Man's  free  will  and 
moral  ability  were  everywhere  presupposed  in  all 
religious  discussions.  Accordingly,  in  order  to  under- 
stand the  growth  of  soteriology  in  the  Nicene  theol- 
ogy, we  must  first  glance  at  the  doctrine  of  sin  which 
prevailed. 

We  may  consider  Justin  as  a  fair  specimen  of 
the  Apologists,  for  he  knew  the  Church,  East  and 
West,  he  wrote  for  both  Jews  and  Gentiles,  and 
was  given  the  first  place  among  the  early  defenders  of 
the  faith.  The  trouble,  which  he  sees  in  the  world  is 
threefold — first  man's  subjection  to  Satan,  second  to 
death,  and  third  to  a  sinful  tendency.'  This  is  the 
order  of  importance,  an  order  which  makes  the  prob- 
lem of  evil  center  in  a  conflict  between  God  and  the 
devil,  and  in  the  struggle  of  life  with  death  rather 
than  in  the  crisis  of  the  soul  conscious  of  sin  against 
God.  This  identification  of  sin  with  Satan  shows 
Justin's  chief  departure  from  New  Testament  haniar- 
tialogy.  He  thereby  set  the  power  of  sin  outside 
man  in  Satan  and  demons,  much  as  was  done  in  Greek 
philosophy  and  the  mysteries,  and  failed  to  grasp  the 
idea  of  sin  as  personal  guilt.  He  saw  man  bound  by 
the  devil,  instead  of  morally  impotent.  The  sinner  is 
so  helpless  that  Christ's  work  alone  can  save  him. 
Justin's  view,  that   Old   Testament  saints  and  some 

1  Dial.  xcv. ;  cf.  Clem.  Alex.  Paecl.  iii.  12. 


:ir 


,  ^1 


210 


Defective   View  of  Medemption^ 


heathen  like  Socrates  were  saved,  need  not  imply  that 
he  regarded  the  atonement  of  Christ  as  non-essential.^ 
He  admits  that  men  cannot  attain  unto  perfect  knowl- 
edge of  God ;  but  he  holds  that  perfect  knowledge  of 
God  is  not  necessary  in  order  to  choose  Christ  and  live. 
He  opposes  the  Gnostics,  in  denying  that  the  evil  in 
man  springs  from  necessity  of  nature.  It  came  from 
the  free  choice  of  Adam  first,  and  then  of  each  man 
in  his  turn ;  for  Justin  has  no  doctrine  of  inherited 
sin.  God,  who  made  all  things,  allows  evil  as  a  dis- 
turbance of  creation,  but  allows  it  as  the  result  of 
man's  free  moral  action.'^  Like  all  the  other  Apolo- 
gists,^ he  contends  that  both  Scripture  and  reason 
make  moral  responsibility  and  moral  freedom  insepa- 
rable. Adam  chose  Satan  rather  than  God;  that  was 
the  beginning  but  not  the  cause  of  all  other  sins. 
Death  and  misery  began  with  Adam ;  but  not  till  men 
make  his  sin  their  own  by  free  choice  are  they  guilty 
before  God.  In  this  connection,  Justin  saw  the  deeper 
problem  of  universal  death  pointing  toward  a  uni- 
versal penalty  of  sin,  and  tried,  but  vnih.  little  success, 
to  explain  it  by  his  theory  of  free-will. 

Irenaeus,  in  the  full  light  of  the  New  Testament, 


^llt 


li 


1  See  Flemming,  S.  26,  against  Von  Engelhardt  and  Weiz- 
sacker. 

2  Dial.  Ixxxviii.  Considering  the  sinfulness  of  man,  Justin 
traces  it  (1)  to  evil  desires  (I  Ajy.  x.);  (2)  to  evil  environment,  bad 
example,  bad  customs  (I  ^'l^j.  Ivii. ;  Ixi;  Dial.  cxix. ) ;  (3)  to  the  work 
of  demons  (I  Ap.  x. ;  xiv.,  cf.  Flemming,  S.  16);  and  (4),  back 
of  all  these,  though  not  organically  connected  with  present  evil, 
was  mentioned  the  fall  of  Adam  {Dial.  Ixxxviii). 

3  Cf.  references  in  Schmid-Hauck,  Dogmengesch.  NOrd- 
lingen.   1887.  S.  123. 


;  iiii 


Legalism^  Sacerdotalism^  Asceticism. 


211 


took  up  the  problem  of  sin  where  the  Apologists  left 
it.  He  believes  with  them  that  man  is  morally  free; 
but  he  sees  more  clearly  than  they  did  that  all  men 
died  in  Adam.^  The  central  position  which  he  gives 
Christ  as  the  restorer  of  all  humanity  in  contrast  with 
Adam,  who  ruined  the  race,  led  him  to  lay  stress  upon 
the  disobedience  of  our  first  parents.  But  having 
done  this,  he  tries  to  roll  the  guilt  upon  the  devil,  and 
makes  Adam's  fall  a  pedagogic  provision  of  God, 
because  only  by  knowledge  of  both  good  and  evil 
could  man  choose  one  or  the  other.  The  results  of 
the  fall  are  ignorance,  misery,  imperfection ;  but  they, 
although  the  fruit  of  our  own  choice,  are  not  proofs 
of  personal  guilt,  but  part  of  a  condition  of  humanity 
graciously  planned  by  God  for  the  education  cf  the 
race.^  In  other  words,  mankind  is  guilty,  but  not  the 
individual.  The  individual  suffers  enough  misery  from 
Adam  to  stir  him  up  to  follow  Christ,  to  live  virtuously, 
and  return  to  God.  By  the  fall  he  lost  Paradise  and 
the  image  and  likeness  of  God;  but  he  retained  his 
free  will  and  his  ability  to  live  justly  before  God,  and 
merit  Paradise,  which  Christ,  having  overthrown  the 
tyranny  of  Satan,  will  restore  to  the  saints. 


i 


^  Ilaeres.  III.   18,  1;  V.  16,  31;  V.  17,  1. 

2  See  Werner's  book,  Der  Paulinismus  cles  Irenaeus.  Leipzig, 
1889,  to  which  I  am  much  indebted  for  help  in  the  study  of 
Irenaeus.  He  sums  up  Irenaeus'  un-PauIine  view  of  original 
sin  thus:  We  have  "instead  of  Adam's  responsibility,  decep- 
tion of  Satan;  instead  of  selfishness,  seduction;  instead  of  the 
wrath  of  God,  divine  pity;  instead  of  separation  from  God,  loss 
of  his  gifts.  Not  sin  as  personal  guilt,  but  the  result  of  sin  as 
general  loss  is  the  central  thought  of  the  view  of  Irenaeus  " 
(S.  137). 


"*■ 


212 


Defective  View  of  Hedemption^ 


The  great  defect  in  this  view  is  that  it  fails  to  rec- 
ognize personal  guilt  and  personal  relation  to  Christ. 
The  human  race  is  guilty  and  the  human  race  is  re- 
deemed by  Christ;  the  individual  can  partially  save 
himself  within  the  atmosphere  of  the  Church. 

When  we  enter  the  early  Alexandrian  School,  a 
similar  circle  of  thought  meets  us.  Clement  says 
"  there  are  two  sources  of  all  sin — ignorance  and  weak- 
ness" {Strom,  vii.  8,  IG).  The  remedy  is  instruc- 
tion and  mastery  of  desire.  The  principle  of  all  wrong 
doing  and  right  doing  is  moral  ability  and  free  will. 
In  one  important  respect,  however,  this  school  took  a 
new  departure  respecting  the  doctrine  of  liberty.  The 
Gnostics  held  that  Adam  would  not  have  fallen  unless 
he  had  V)een  imperfect,  and  if  he  were  imperfect  he 
could  not  have  l)een  created  by  the  Supreme  God.  To 
meet  this  objection,  Clement  and  Origen  taught  a  lib- 
erty of  indifference,  and  put  their  theory  of  the  will, 
as  a  power  in  man  choosing  independent  of  reason  or 
truth,  at  the  foundation  of  their  theology.^  The 
motives  of  man,  the  nature  of  man  did  not  decide  the 
choice;  neither  did  God's  predestination  nor  His  crea- 
tion; all  came  from  the  sovereign,  self-moved  will. 
Hence  evil  acts  followed  from  evil  choices.  There  is 
no  evil  in  man's  nature.  Adam's  transgression  was 
the  type,  not  the  cause  of  sin.^     Origen,  by  his  theory 

1  See  Bigg,  The  Christian  Pkttonists  of  Alexandria.  The 
Bamptoii  Lectures  for  1886,  p.  78, 

2  Clement,  like  Ritschl,  made  God  only  love;  and  creation, 
the  work  of  the  Divine  Logos,  a  product  of  love.  Therefore, 
sin  is  not  necessary;  it  arises  from  the  hindrance  of  natural 
things.  Redemption,  too,  requires  no  sacrifice,  because  it 
springs   from  a  God  of   love,  and  love  needs   no   atonement. 


Hi 


Legalising  SctcerdotaUsmy  Asceticism. 


213 


of  preexistence,  put  the  fall  of  souls  in  a  previous  life; 
the  evils  which  reach  us  through  Adam  he  refers 
chiefly  to  bodily  weakness,  though  he  also  speaks  of 
inheritance  of  character.  He  here  presents  two  con- 
tradictory theories,  one  making  each  soul  fall  for  itself, 
the  other  tracing  the  fall  to  Adam. 

The  opponents  of  Origen,  especially  Methodius, 
took  a  semi-Pelagian  view  of  sin  and  moral  ability. 
But  the  later  Alexandrian  school,  as  represented  by 
Athanasius,  laid  more  stress  upon  the  guilt  of  sin  and 
the  need  of  grace.  He  traces  sin  and  death  to  Adam's 
transgression.^  Man's  nature  is  perverted,  so  that 
Christ  must  become  man  to  "undo  the  perversion  of 
the  devil."  The  exercise  of  man's  will  must  be  sup- 
ported by  the  Holy  Spirit  from  the  outset  in  order  to 
choose  God.^  Here  Athanasius  approaches  the  doc- 
trine of  the  new  birth  as  preceding  the  exercise  of  will 
in  conversion ;  but  elsewhere  he  falls  into  the  view  that 
man's  mind  is  only  obscured ;  that  he  can  still  know 
God  and  keep  His  law.  He  is  confused  between  the 
thought  that  the  Logos  in  every  man  enlightens  him, 
and  that  the  Logos  dwells  especially  in  Christiana, 
making  them  sons  of  God  (/Z».  iii.  10).  In  the  one 
case,  natural  endowment  can  guide  man  in  the  way  of 


Clement  did  not  understand  the  Old  Testament  sacrifices  to  a 
God  of  justice.  Neither  did  Philo;  or  he  allegorized  them 
away.  Ritschl,  also,  strange  to  say,  after  finding  the  misappre- 
hension of  the  Old  Testament  sacrifices  to  be  the  reason  why  the 
primitive  Gospel  was  perverted,  has  to  set  aside  the  atoning 
element  in  them,  and  practically  rob  them  of  meaning,  to  reach 
what  he  holds  to  be  the  primitive  gospel. 

^    Cont.  Apoll.  i.  15;   C.  Ar.  ii.  6,  1. 

2    C.  Ar.  i.  51;  ii.  65. 


11 


fl  1 


U'.H^. 


In 


n 


p 


214 


Defective   View  of  liedemption., 


virtue;  in  the  other,  special  grace  is  necessary.  Here 
Athanasius  halts  between  two  opinions  respecting 
man's  ability  to  choose  the  good  himself  and  salvation 
as  a  gift  of  God.  Like  Irenaeus,  he  traces  sin  to  two 
sources,  to  the  freedom  of  the  will  and  exercise  of  rea- 
son, and  to  the  sinfulness  of  the  human  race,  without 
trying  to  explain  their  divergence.*  Greek  theology 
believed  in  the  fall  of  man,  in  universal  sinfulness  as 
the  result,  and  in  a  totality  of  human  guilt  which  was 
connected  with  Adam.  But  it  failed  to  give  definite- 
ness  to  these  doctrines ;  it  could  not  estimate  the  degree 
of  man's  sinfulness,  the  relation  of  actual  transgression 

*  The  "Western  Church  followed  rather  the  soteriology  of 
Irenaeus  than  that  of  Alexandria.  It  agreed  with  the  East  in 
the  freedom  of  the  will  to  choose  good  or  evil  (cf .  TertuUian 
Ad.  Marc.  ii.  5) ;  but  felt  also  that  the  human  race  was  repre- 
sented in  Adam  and  greatly  affected  by  his  fall.  The  physical 
continuity  of  mankind  and  the  consequent  transmission  of 
Adam's  sins  to  his  descendants  were  main  ined.  TertuUian's 
view  (traducianism)  of  the  soul  of  the  chii«..  "'^ceeding  from 
the  soul  of  the  parent,  brought  the  sins  of  men  i.  ^  vital  one- 
ness with  the  sin  of  Adam.  Augustine  did  not  auv  \)t  this 
view;  but  did  hold  that  the  fall  of  our  first  parents  imparted  a 
sinful  nature  to  all  men  {Cont.  Jul,  iii.  24;  Civ.  Dei,  xiii.  3), 
TertuUian  and  others  taught,  however,  that  the  darkness  of  sin  in 
man  was  not  unbroken.  A  spark  of  original  ri^-btoousness  is 
left,  which  grace  can  blow  into  a  flame.  firaoe  cooperates 
w'th  the  power  of  good  still  left  in  man.  A  ^mall  place  was 
left  for  human  merit  {Ad.  Marc.  iv.  26). 

The  Eastern  Church  laid  stress  upon  freedom  and  moral 
ability;  the  Western  Church  laid  stress  upon  sin  and  grace. 
The  one  spoke  more  of  reason;  the  other  more  of  the  soul.  The 
Greeks  looked  rather  to  knowledge:  the  Latins  spoke  more  of 
faith.  The  aberrations  of  the  East  ran  toward  rationalism;  the 
mistakes  of  the  West  inclined  more  toward  superstition  (cf. 
in  general,  Seeberg,  S.   150f.). 


Legalism,  ^'acerdotalUnif  Aaceticiam. 


215 


t  a 


to  an  evil  state  in  man,  and  how  the  guilt  of  the  race 
was  connected  with  the  sin  of  Adam  (cf.  Thomasius, 
I.  48-4).  The  reasons  for  this  iiu perfect  grasp  of 
human  sinfulness  were  various. 

(1)  And  first  of  all  may  be  noticed  the  Greek 
conception  of  God  and  the  universe,  whicli  colored 
the  thought  of  the  Church.  The  Absolute  alone  was 
perfect;  man  as  finite  must  of  necessity  be  niorally 
limited  and  weak.  Demerit  came  to  be  regarded  as 
misfortune  rather  than  guilt,  a  mistake  or  defect 
through  lack  of  knowledge  or  power.  And  as  man's 
limitation  was  most  felt  in  the  body,  that  was  re- 
garded as  the  seat  of  evil.  It  was  the  tomb,  the 
prison  of  the  rational  soul — tfwyua  6^/na.  Sin  was,  ac- 
cordingly, related  first  of  all  to  the  nature  of  things, 
and  not  to  God.  Such  a  view  of  sin  led  men  to  look 
in  the  wrong  direction  for  its  removal.  Instead  of 
thinking  of  the  Divine  Redeemer  ever  present  to  for- 
give, theologians  spoke  of  the  knowledge  which 
would  lift  the  soul  into  the  vision  of  God,  or  tlie 
asceticism  which  would  free  men  from  the  fetters  of 
the  body.  The  drift  of  all  such  moralism  was 
toward  pessimism,  as  appeared  in  Origen  (cf.  Bigg, 
p.  206);  for  if  sin  springs  from  the  limitations  of 
human  nature,  no  escape  is  possible  till  death  shall 
set  us  free.* 


■u\ 


he 
of 
he 

:f. 


^  This  view  of  sin  as  springing  from  the  limited  nature  of 
man — revived  in  modern  times  by  Leibnitz — (1)  weakened  the 
wrongdoer's  sense  of  demerit,  (2)  inclined  him  to  put  sin  in 
the  bodily  nature,  (3)  removed  evil  from  its  relation  to  God, 
(4)  offered  little  hope  for  its  extinction,  for  man  would  never 
cease  to  be  finite — hence  Origen,  pressing  in  this  direction, 
taught  an  endless  series  of  possible  falls  and  restorations  of 


'^'\ 


"ill 


m 


\F 


216 


Defective   View  of  Redemption, 


(2)  The  Greek  view,  that  only  by  union  with 
God  can  finite  man  become  good  or  remain  good,  also 
modified  tlie  Church  view  of  sin.  It  was  right  to 
hold  that  the  Logos  of  creation  is  the  Logos  of  re- 
demption; nature  and  grace  are  both  in  the  power 
of  Christ.  We  believe  that  the  unio  mystica  is 
taught  by  the  Bible,  history  and  experience  to  be  a 
doctrine  of  Christianity.  The  saying  of  Paul,  "we 
are  the  offspring  of  God,"  was  often  quoted  in  proof 
of  original  relationship  between  man  and  his  Maker.* 
But  there  was  another  view  of  the  union  of  humanity 
with  God  which  landed  in  fate  and  necessity.  The 
good  and  the  ill  in  man's  lot  were  regarded  as  both 
alike  fixed  by  God  and  nature.  On  this  theory  the 
Gnostics  based  their  hylic  and  spiritual  distinctions 
among  men.  And,  though  Gnosticism  was  rejected 
by  the  Church,  its  fatalistic  temper  lingered  some- 
what in  Christian  theology. 

(3)  It  was  in  opposition  to  this  Stoic  neces- 
sarianism,  which  practically  made  whatever  is  right 
and  confounded  moral  distinctions,  that  men  like 
Irenaeus  magnified  free  vrill  and  moral  ability.  They 
admitted  that  enough  of  the  Divine  is  in  all  men  to 
enable  them  to  do  right;  they  admitted  also  that  only 
through  God  can  man  please  God ;  but  they  declared 

men,  (5)  looked  in  the  wrong  direction  for  salvation,  viz.,  by 
the  removal  of  the  limitations  of  ignorance  by  knowledge,  of 
the  body  by  asceticism,  and  (6),  by  identifying  the  perfect  with 
the  infinite,  led  m'^jn  to  seek  salvation  by  ecstasy  or  absorption 
into  the  Absolute. 

1  See  Justin's  Logos  spermatikos,  II  Ap.  vi.,  xiii. ;  Tei'- 
tullian's  "man  by  nature  Christian";  and  Irenaeus' view  that 
Jesus  is  the  ideal  man. 


Legalism^  Sacerdotalism.,  Asceticism. 


217 


.,  by 

of 

I  with 

)tion 

iTer- 
that 


that  the  relation  to  God  mu8t  be  free  if  it  was  to  be 
responsible.  Origen  adopted  his  doctrine  of  free 
will,  as  we  saw,  in  direct  opposition  to  Hellenic 
teachings;  for  determinism  and  particularism  re- 
gardless of  consequences  were  the  foundation  of 
Greek  ethics;  while  personal  freedom  was  felt  to  be 
both  a  doctrine  of  Scripture  and  a  demand  of  sound 
reason,  therefore  fundamental  to  Christianity.  There 
were  thus  two  movements  in  Hellenism,  which,  by 
similarity  or  contrast,  led  the  Church  unduly  to  exalt 
ability  and  free  will;  the  first  was  the  general  view 
of  man's  reason  as  a  divine  endowment  which  en- 
abled him  to  choose  the  good  and  do  good — this  was 
in  the  line  of  Platonism;  the  second  was  Stoic-Gnostic 
fatalism,  which  led  the  Alexandrian  School  to  recoil 
too  far  toward  man's  perfect  freedom  and  responsi- 
bility. Tliere  was  no  need  apparently  to  emphasize 
man's  impotence  and  need  of  divine  grace;  Natural- 
ism, Fatalism,  Dualism  of  the  most  dangerous  sort, 
pressed  the  Church  into  preaching,  almost  exclusively, 
ability  and  obligation. 

(4)  Another  side  of  ancient  thought — springing 
partly  from  Plato — was  that  evil  had  no  real  exist- 
ence; because,  being  sepurate  from  God  who  is  the 
good  and  the  principle  of  all  being,  it  is  essent^/illy 
unreal.  Origen  greatly  pi'omoted  this  view*,  and  it 
was  adopted  by  others  (of.  Harnack  H.  125.).  Its 
partial  application  was  that  as  reason  is  the  divine  in 
man ,  so  sin  consists  only  in  forsaking  reason  to  follow 
the  un."  .lities  and  shadows  offered  by  passion  and 
bodily  pleasures. 

1  Cf.  Klein,  Die  Freiheitslehre  des   Origenea.     Strassburg. 
Notice  in  Theol.  Jahreaberichty  xiv,  S.  1Y2. 


218 


Defective   View  of  Redemption^ 


!■: 


> 


(5)  Besides  these  rational  considerations  whicli 
obscured  the  conception  of  sin,  there  were  Bible 
teachings  which  were  taken  to  shift  the  responsibility 
of  evil.  The  chief  of  these,  as  already  noticed,  was 
the  reference  of  the  origin  of  all  sin  to  the  devil. 
From  Justin  on,  Greek  theology  attributed  all  the 
enmity  between  God  and  man,  all  physical  and  moral 
evil,  death  of  body  and  soul,  as  well  as  all  temptation 
to  unbelief  and  superstition,  every  impulse  to  passion 
and  lust,  to  Satan.  ^  Belief  in  demonology  and  in- 
fernal agencies  of  every  sort  greatly  attenuated  the 
doctrine  of  sin  in  the  ante-Nicene  Church. 

(6)  Even  the  very  Christological  development, 
which  is  the  glory  of  Greek  theology,  hindered  a  full 
apprehension  of  evil  and  guilt.  All  controversy 
moved  about  the  Person  of  Christ;  and  there  was  no 
discussion  in  the  East,  as  that  about  Pelagianism  later 
in  the  West,  to  lead  to  a  sharp  analysis  of  what  was 
meant  by  the  lost  estate  of  man.  On  the  one  hand, 
the  Greeks  must  press  human  freedom  and  responsi- 
bility; on  the  other,  they  must  exalt  the  Divine 
Christ.  Their  theology  might  be  summed  up  in  the 
full  liberty  of  all  men  to  accept  eternal  life  in  the 
God-Man.  They  found  the  counterpoise  to  the  radi- 
cal doctrine  of  freedom  in  those  objective  truths  which 
group  themselves  about  the  fundamental  tenet  of 
the  Incarnation  of  God.  ^  Man  is  perfectly  free; 
union  with  God  is  the  goal  of  humanity;  but  only 
through  the  God-Man  can  this  fellowship  of  man  and 
God  be  restored.     So  ran  this  early  thinking.     Fac3 

1  Cf.  Justin,  I  Ap.  v;   Athenagoras,   Suppl.    xxv;  Tatian, 
vii;  Irenaeus  III.  23,  3;  and  Thomasius,  I.  470  f. 

2  See  Moeller,  Prot.  E.  Encyk.,  xi.  S.  40P. 


Legalism^  Sacerdotalism^  Asceticism. 


219 


pe; 


in. 


to  face  with  Christ,  man  sees  the  need  of  grace ;  but 
he  sees  it,  not  from  the  point  of  view  of  his  own  help- 
lessness, but  in  the  presence  of  the  marvelous  incar- 
nate grace  of  the  Son  of  God.  The  recognition  of  all 
in  Christ,  made  these  Fathers  see  no  danger  of  laying 
too  much  stress  upon  man's  free  will  in  the  appro- 
jpriation  of  salvation.  Since  the  bringing  of  it  was 
all  of  grace,  the  taking  of  it  might  be  perfectly  free. 
Hence  all  that  was  said  about  receiving  it  was  that 
both  man's  will  and  divine  grace  wer6  active  in  it. 
An  inadequate  view  of  sin  led  Greek  theology  every- 
.vhere  to  teach  that  grace  cooperates  with  free  will  in 
man's  salvation.  The  will,  though  free,  was  weak- 
ened by  sin;  hence  the  need  of  divine  aid  in  the  life 
of  virtue.  ^ 

We  are  now  prepared  to  notice  the  view  of  redemp- 
tion held  by  the  Apologists  and  their  theological 
successors.  We  have  seen  the  defective  soteriology 
of  the  Apostolic  Fathers,  and  traced  the  imperfect 
apprehension  of  the  need  of  salvation,  which  spread 
in  thf  ivhurch,  owing  to  the  exaggerated  importance 
atta*  sei  to  the  doctrine  of  free  will  and  natural 
vi.  vn  aid  the  desire  to  meet  pagan  attacks  upon 
muQ'h     'i-ponsibility.     The  division  of  the  mediatorial 


work 


/iirist  —  as    Reason    and    Revelation,   as 


Teacher  and  Redeemer  —  which  we  observed  from 
the  point  of  view  of  man's  sinfulness,  comes  into 
stronger  relief  in  a  consideration  of  what  He  was 
supposed  to  do  to  save  men.  The  Apostolic  Fathers 
we^e  unable  to  connect  both  man's  sinful  state  before 
ptism  and  his  battle  with  evil  after  baptism,  with 


»  bee   Justin,  II    Ap.    xiii;  I  Ap.   x;  Irenaeus,    III.  IV,  2; 
IV.  37,  2;  V.  9,  3;  Clem,  Alex.,  Strom,  v.  13;  vii.  7. 


w 


1/  i-:i'^ 


I*  J; '.  ! 


1 1,1^; 


,i     !tt 


220 


Defective  View  of  Redemption^ 


the  one  complete  work  of  Christ.  The  result  was  a 
similar  inability  to  connect  what  Christ  did  for  man 
in  general,  enabling  him  to  become  a  Christian,  with 
what  He  does  for  man  as  a  Christian.  ^  When  this 
problem  passed  over  to  the  Apologists,  it  was  further 
complicated  by  a  discussion  of  the  divine  and  human 
sides  of  Christ's  person  and  Avork,  which  was  now 
thrust  upon  the  Church.  The  analysis  of  Christ  into 
the  Divine  Logos  and  Jesus  the  Messiah,  to  meet 
heathen  and  Gnostic  crii  :"  •"%  instead  of  bringing 
greater  unity  into  the  tet  ags  about  salvation, 
rather  promoted  a  kind  of  dualism.  From  Justin  to 
Athanasius,  there  run  more  or  less  parallel,  but  more 

^  The  greatest  problem  in  the  internal  history  of  the  early 
Church  was  that  of  sins  committed  after  baptism.  Connected 
with  it,  appeared  Montanism,  schisms,  asceticism,  sacraments, 
penances,  etc.  The  solutions  reached  were  various  and,  in  an 
inci'casing  degree,  unsatisfactory.  (1)  In  opposition  to  Montan- 
ism, many  Catholic  Christians  grew  content  with  a  lower  stand- 
ard of  living,  became  more  unholy,  and  trusted  in  general 
belief  in  Christianity  and  doing  one's  duty.  (2)  In  recognition 
of  a  certain  truth  in  the  attitude  of  separation  from  the  world 
preached  by  Montanism,  ascetics  and  later  monks  sought  pardon 
of  post-baptismal  sins  in  the  anchorite  life.  (3)  The  Church 
that  did  not  flee  to  the  deserts  magnified  more  and  more  the 
sacraments  and  mysteries  as  means  of  blotting  out  yins.  The 
number  of  sacraments  was  increased,  a  penitential  system  (from 
Cyprian  on)  grew  up  about  them,  and  a  mathematical  calcula- 
tion of  good  works  arose,  which  reckoned  the  alms,  prayers,  and 
other  exercises,  required  for  the  removal  of  every  kind  and  de- 
gree of  post-baptismal  sin.  Sacraments  especially  got  between 
the  soul  and  the  Saviour,  till,  by  a  strange  combination  of  super- 
stition and  a  longing  for  the  Divine  Redeemer,  the  doctrine  of 
the  Mass  arose  in  the  Middle  Ages  —  the  one  dogma  developed 
in  that  eclipse  of  faith  —  and  brought  the  penitent,  kneeling 


Legalism^  Sacerdotalism,  Asceticism. 


221 


le 
im 
la- 
id 
e- 
jn 
r- 
)f 
Id 

g 


or  less  unrelated,  sometimes  almost  antagonistic,  the 
naturalistic  and  the  evangelical  conceptions  of  Christ 
and  His  work.  Justin  speaks  of  Him  usually  as  a 
teacher,  as  "the  new  Lawgiver,"  the  perfect  Reason 
and  Wisdom  of  God ;  but  he  also  describes  Christ  as 
the  Redeemer,  whose  blood  atones  for  sin.  The  re- 
s'llt  is  conflicting  statements  about  salvation :  now  man 
is  saved  by  grace;  again  he  seems  to  save  himself  by 
virtue.  From  Irenaeus  on,  the  Greek  Church  pre- 
sents two  unmediated  views  of  Christ's  work.  Ac- 
cording to  one.  He  came,  (a)  in  harmony  with  a  Di- 
vine Plan,  and  (b)  as  the  second  Adam  to  restore  all 
that  had  been  lost  by  the  first  Adam.  Here  Jesus  is 
the  ideal  Man,  related  by  the  incarnation  to  humanity 

before  the  bread  and  wine,  to  bow  also  to  Christ  crucilied. 
The  supreme  central  position  attained  by  the  Mass,  with  all  its 
errors,  helped  fasten  the  faith  of  the  worshiper  upon  Christ, 
even  though  the  very  prayer  addressed  to  Him  was  part  of  a 
system  of  legality.  (4)  But  above  all  and  crowning  all,  was  the 
thought  that  good  works  earned  the  pardon  of  post-baptismal 
sins.  'Cyprian  said,  "we  wash  away  by  alms  "  such  defects. 
He  summed  up  religion  in  "prayer  and  good  works"  {Ep. 
xvi.  2).  These,  he  said,  satisfied  God.  The  Lord's  Supper, 
which  Irenaeus  called  "a  gift"  (IV.  17,  5),  Cyprian  called  "a 
sacrifice,"  offered  by  "a  priest "  and  only  in  the  Church  {Ep. 
Ixiii.  14).  It  was  the  great  aid  of  good  works.  Here  wc  find 
the  clear  outlines  of  early  Catholicism,  with  its  "  utter  materi- 
alizing of  religion  "  by  legalism  and  priestcraft  (Sccborg,  S. 
115).  The  result  was  a  two-fold  morality,  of  "  secular  "  Chris- 
tians, who  did  as  Avell  as  ])0ssible  in  the  world,  and  "  regular" 
Christians,  who  assumed  the  Virgin,  the  ascetic  life.  Heaven 
was  the  reward  of  such  good  works;  hence  eschatology  now 
became  prominent  with  its  resurrection  to  crown  the  saints 
with  immortality,  and  the  rich  payment  for  all  faithful  serv- 
ices. The  Kingdom  of  God  passed  more  and  more  into  this 
future  of  hope. 


222 


Defective   View  of  Redemption^ 


'  '} 


■V 


\ 


as  a  whole.  According  to  the  other  view,  Christ's 
death  is  the  central  thing.  He  bore  the  curse  of  sin 
and  paid  the  penalty  which  redeemed  His  people.  He 
is  related  to  the  Church  in  a  way  unknown  to  the 
rest  of  mankind.  The  Adam  view  fell  easily  in  line, 
from  a  Bible  standpoint,  with  the  thought  of  Christ 
as  Teacher,  Lawgiver,  u  .d  Restorer  of  humanity  by 
instruction  to  iue  knowledge  and  favor  of  God ;  while 
the  teaching  of  Christ  as  Saviour  from  the  devil  and 
death  sought  to  do  justice  to  all  the  evangelical  ele- 
ments of  Church  tradition  and  especially  of  the  New 
Testament,  which  with  Irenaeus  and  the  Alexandrian 
School  became  a  test  of  doctrine. 

These  lines  of  thought,  the  one  essentially  natural 
theology,  resting  upon  the  will  and  virtue,  the  other 
above  all  a  revealed  theology  of  redemption,  are  not,  as 
the  school  of  Ritschl  holds,  incompatible,  but  need  only 
to  be  properly  related  to  form  legitimate  parts  of  syste- 
matic theology.  The  revelation  of  God  in  the  imi verse, 
the  testimony  of  a  man's  own  nature  on  moral  ques- 
tions, cannot  be  kept  apart  from  the  teachings  of  Christ. 
The  great  work  of  Origen,  as  of  every  Christian  theol- 
ogian, seeks  to  set  all  knowledge  in  relation  to  Divine 
revelation.  If  the  Divine  Christ  as  Redeemer  and  Lord 
be  put  at  the  center  of  our  thinking,  then  nature 
telling  of  God,  conscience  telling  of  sin  and  need  of 
salvation,  and  reason  giving  arguments  for  following 
after  Christ,  become  His  ministering  angels.  The 
Apologists  fighting  paganism,  and  Irenaeus  and  the 
Alexandrian  men  battling  against  Gnosticism,  were 
convinced  of  the  unity  of  all  the  truth  whicli  Lhey  knew 
about  Christ;  but  they  could  not  put  it  in  proper 
adjustment.     They  related  what  the  Old  Testament 


Legalism^  SacerdoUdisin ,  Asceticism. 


223 


aral 
ther 
t,  as 
)nly 
ste- 
rse, 
es- 
ist. 
leol- 
'ine 
ord 
ure 
I  of 
iug 
he 
the 
ere 
ew 
[per 
lent 


taught  about  the  Son  of  God,  and  what  Greek  phi- 
losophy shadowed  forth  about  the  Divine  Reason, 
with  the  Incarnate  Christ  by  means  of  the  Logos 
spermatikos.  But  when  they  turned  to  the  simple 
faith  of  the  Church  in  the  God-Man,  who  resisted  the 
devil,  who  died  on  the  cross,  who  gave  life  to  His 
new  Israel,  who  rose  from  the  dead  granting  a  pledge 
of  immortality  to  all  believers,  and  who  would  come 
agaL.  to  take  His  people  to  glory,  these  early  theolo- 
gians found  a  phase  of  Christianity  which  they  could 
not  relate  directly  to  the  Logos  Christology,  and 
which,  from  their  Apologetic  point  of  view,  they 
found  no  need  of  so  relating.  The  moralistic  type  of 
gospel,  which  the  A])ostolic  Fathers  show,  became 
more  pronounced  in  the  philosophical  thought  of  the 
Apologists,  and  probably  received  an  additional 
Hellenistic  tone  to  make  it  more  acceptable  to  educa- 
ted heathen.  The  recently  discovered  work  of  Aris- 
tides  presents  Christianity  as  pure  living  according  to 
the  ten  commandments  and  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount. 
This  pure  living  should  incline  toward  asceticism 
and  the  virgin  state.  He  tells  the  Emperor  that 
Christians  "  labor  to  become  righteous  as  those  who 
expect  to  see  their  Messiah  and  receive  from  Him  the 
promises  made  to  tliera,  with  great  glory.'' '  But  he 
shows  also  the  evanojelical  side  of  Christian  teachinixs, 
saying:  "  Christ  came  down  from  Heaven  .  .  .  for 
the  salvation  of  men."  '^  He  came  according  to  an 
oiHovonia  of  God ;  and  "  through  the  cross  He  tasted 
death  of  His  own  free  will,  according  to  His  great 

plan  ''\oiKovoniav). 

i  See  p.  50  of  R.  Harris'  Edition. 
'^  C.  XV.  1.  u.  p.  110. 


VM 


224 


Defective   Vie  to  of  Hedemption^ 


l-fl-i 


In  much  greater  variety  does  Justin  present  these 
two  sides  of  the  work  of  Christ.  His  Apologies,  ad- 
dressed to  heathen,  show  more  the  Christianity  of  rea- 
son; his  Diahjgue  with  Trypho  the  Jew  presents  the 
more  Biblical  aspect  of  the  Lord's  work.  He  may  be 
said  to  show  Christ  and  His  mission  from  five  points 
of  view: 

(1)  He  is  first  the  Divine  Logos,  who  gave  the  Law 
to  Moses,  the  revelation  of  God  to  the  prophets  and 
their  "svisdom  to  the  Greek  sages. 

(2)  Beyond  this  incomplete  manifestation.  He  is 
by  His  Licarnution  the  giver  of  a  New  Law  {Dial,  xi; 
xxi;  xlii.),  not  national  bntimiversal,  not  temporal  but 
eternal,  not  ceremonial  but  spiritual,  th'>  Law  of  the 
Absolute  Good,  ^  which  the  Greeks  longed  after.  This 
Summuiii  Boniun^  first  given  by  Christ,  was  absolutely 
perfect  and  made  Christianity  the  absolute  religion. 

(3)  Justin  next  presents  PauTs  idea  (Eph.  i.  10) 
of  Christ  as  tlie  Kecapitulator  of  all  created  things, 
especially  of  al  races  of  men  and  persons  of  all  ages; 
and  sees  in  the  Incarnation  the  unity  of  mankind  with 
God  restored,  after  being  broken  by  the  Fall.  So  far 
the  reference  is  chiefly  to  Christ  as  the  Logos  and 
Teacher  of  knowledge.  The  other  two  views  set  forth 
by  Justin  refer  to  Christ  as  Redeemer. 

(•i)  He  is  conqueror  over  the  devil,  who  de- 
ceived Adam  and  led  man  into  bondage  to  demons, 
who,  under  the  name  of  gods,  still  ruled  the  heathen 
world ;   and 

(5)  He  is  vanquisher  of  death,  the  giver  of  im- 
mortality to  all  who  believe  in  Him.  It  is  at  this  point 

^  It  is  summed  up  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  I  Ap.  xv; 
Dial.  xlv. 


Legalism^  Sacerdotalism^  Asceticism. 


225 


!;es; 
ith 
far 
land 
.rth 

|de- 
ms, 
I  en 

iin- 
[int 

Ixv; 


especially  that  Justin  fails  to  grasp  the  New  Testament 
doctrine  of  redemption.  He  knows  that  salvation  is  a 
plan  of  God  and  that  it  centers  in  the  atoning  death 
of  Christ' — it  was  an  "offering  in  behalf  of  all  sinners 
who  are  willing  to  repent " —  but  he  relates  the  work 
of  the  Saviour  so  closely  to  the  work  of  the  devil  that 
sin  itself  anu  man's  guilty  connection  with  it  fall  into 
the  background,  while  redemption  appears  above  all 
as  a  crushing  defeat  of  Satan.-'  He  cannot  tell  how  the 
overthrow  of  Satan  is  related  to  man's  redemption. 
He  finds  the  Bible  speaking  of  salvation  as  deliverance 
from  the  evil  one,  and  he  knew  that  the  Greeks  regarded 
a  life  of  virtue  as  a  battle  with  demons;  but  he  was 
unable  to  connect  such  ideas  with  "  the  saving  blood" 
{Dial,  xiii.),  which  works  forgiveness  through  baptism 
(of.  Flemming,  S.  30).  Deliverance  for  man  must 
mean  deliverance  from  guilt;  but  deliverance  from 
guilt  means  to  satisfy  divine  justice,  the  right  of  God 
against  ^^•hicll  all  sin  is  committed. 

Now  Justin  and  his  theological  successors,  instead 
of  relating  Christ's  atonement  to  the  divine  justice,  put 
the  rights  of  the  devil  in  man  as  his  property  in  the 
foreground,  and  made  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  something 
paid  to  Satan,  that  he  might  not  be  unjustly  robbed  of 
his  human  subjects.^  Man  had  deliberately  fallen  into 
the  power  of  the  devil,  and  justice  required  that  a  ran- 
som be  given  for  his  deliverance.    Such  a  view,  looking 

1  Cf.  J)ial.  cc.  90-96;  111,  134,  13,  54,  74;  and  Von  Engol- 
hardt,  S.  292. 

2  2><W.  cc.  31,  48,  63,   67;  I  Ap.    cc.   23  and  63;  cf.    Bcl:m, 
S.  486f. 

3  See  Baur,  Die  Christl.  Lehre  vondcr  Versohnung  in  iltnr 
gcscli.  Entioickelung.     Tubingen.    1838.  S.  27. 


P 

-J 


1^ 


226 


Defective   View  of  JRedemption, 


li' 


ii 


h] 


upon  redcinj^tion  from  the  side  of  justice  to  Satan  and 
benefit  to  man,  failed  to  see  the  absolute  value  of  Christ's 
atonement,  and,  ])y  leaving  it  unrelated  to  Divine  right- 
eousness, made  a  consistent  doctrine  of  atonement  im- 
possible. Tills  appears  at  once  in  the  inability  of  Jus- 
tin to  bring  together  Christ's  work  as  Logos  in  the 
world  and  history  and  His  sacrificial  death  for  sin. 
He  makes  Christ  teach  His  own  atonement  as  part  of 
the  new  Law,  which  He  revealed  (cf.  Flemming,  S. 
28).  As  Lono8  ^permatihosi  He  qualified  every  man 
with  conscience  and  moral  freedom  so  that  he  can  hear 
Christ  as  Teacher  and  be  saved.  As  Christ  Incarnate 
He  offers  Himself  as  the  law  and  example  to  be  fol- 
lowed.^    By  the   Law  of   Christ,  Justin  means  much 

1  It  is  not  the  whole  truth  to  say  .with  Ritschl  [Entstehung, 
S.  45)  that  for  .Justin,  "Christianity  was  the  Mosaic  Law  puri- 
fied from  ritualistic  elements  " ;  for  he  plainly  holds  that  the 
Christian  Law  "  abrogated  that  which  is  before  it  "  {Dial,  xi.); 
and  this  new  law  he  identifies  with  Christ.  He  appeals  to  Jere- 
miah xxxi.  31,  32,  and  for  Trypho  sets  forth  the  Gospel  as  "a 
new  covenant,"  just  as  I  have  often  heard  Evangelical  missiona- 
ries present  Christianity  to  Jews  now.  But  his  contrast  is  more 
than  that  of  ritual  and  moral  law;  it  is  thnt  of  ritual  and  for- 
giveness through  the  blood  of  Christ —  "faith  through  the  blood 
of  Christ,  and  through  His  death"  {Dial,  xiii.) — it  is  that  of  Jew- 
ish ceremonies  and  conversion  with  baptism  of  regeneration 
(xiv).  His  appeal  to  Trypho  is  not  to  obey  Christ's  law,  but 
to  "believe  on  Him,  and  be  saved"  (xxxv.).  The  great  sin  of 
the  Jews  was  not  disobedience  of  law  but  "  blasphemy "  of 
Christ.  The  long  arguments  of  Justin  to  convince  his  adver- 
sary that  Jesus  was  God  Incarnate  show  that  he  felt  that  Chris- 
tianity was  more  than  "the  Mosaic  law  purified  from  ritualistic 
elements";  it  was  vital  union  with  Jesus  Christ  (Z>ja;.  xliii; 
Ixiii.).  Ritschl  adds,  that  Justin  followed  "  the  common  Apos- 
tolic  view"  of  redemption  "through  the  blood  of  Christ,"  and 


Legalism^  S ace r dotal iiim,,  AsceticiHm. 


2'>7 


m 


more,  however,  than  u  fuller  revelation  of  Greek  wis- 
dom or  Old  Testament  prophecy.  He  lays  the  empha- 
sis upon  7ieio  rather  than  upon  Law;  he  includes  all 
the  gospel  as  taught  by  Christ  in  it;  he  traces  it  di- 
rectly to  Old  Testament  prophecy  and  sets  it  in  con- 
trast to  Old  Testament  law  (referring  to  Is.  ii.  3; 
Jerem.  xxxiii.  31;  and  Ezek.  xi.  19);  he  explains  it  as 
essentially  love;  he  identifies  it  with  Christ  Himself; 
and  teaches  that  to  obey  it  man  must  be  created 
anew,  (I  Ap.  x.),  repent,  believe  in  Christ  and  be  bap- 
tized. It  is  not  correct,  then,  to  hold  with  Von  Engel- 
hardt  (S.  452)  "  that  Justin  regarded  the  Revelation 
of  Christ  as  simply  completing  man's  knowledge  of 
God   and   giving  a  foundation  to  doctrines  of  virtue." 

received  by  faith — though  he  fell  short  of  Paul's  high  doctrine. 
We  may  admit  a  moralistic  element  in  Justin's  gospel,  and  see 
also  that  he  cannot  connect  thi;.  consistently  with  salvation 
through  faith  in  Jesus  Christ;  hut  that  does  not  mean  that  his 
Christianity  was  only  Judaism  with  its  ritualistic  elements 
stripped  off.  To  the  Greek  he  presents  the  gospel  as,  lirst, 
faith  and  repentance;  and,  then,  as  a  life  of  virtue  according  to 
a  new  law,  which  all  men  can  obey.  But  to  the  Jews  he  shows 
that  Christianity  is  redemption  through  Christ,  the  conqueror 
of  demons  and  death.  The  difficulty  is  that  Justin  cannot  bring 
these  two  conceptions  into  harmony.  This  defect  is  common  to 
all  the  Apologists. 

Further,  when  Justin  says  {Dial,  xiii.)  that  Old  Testament 
saints  were  saved  "by  faith  through  the  blood  of  Christ,  and 
through  His  death,  who  died  for  this  very  reason,"  and  else- 
where repeatedly  declares  that  salvation  came  through  the  cross 
and  passion  of  Jesus,  it  is  certainly  a  wrong  view  of  his  teach- 
ings to  sum  them  up  in  a  revealed  philosophy.  He  says:  "Our 
Teacher  was  crucified  and  died  and  rose  again  and  ascended 
into  heaven  "  (I  Ap.  xxi.).  He  died  and  rose  again  that  "  He 
might  conquer  death"  (Ixiii.).     Trypho  taunted  Christians  with 


^p 


*; 


■,l 


it  iiv 


i;-. 


228 


Defective   Vietv  of  Jiedetnpfion., 


lie  teaches  more  than  a  revealed  nat\iral  theohigy ;  nnd 
t^ie  somewhat  negative  teachings  of  other  Apologists 
should  not  be  taken  to  prove  that  Justin  did  not  fairly 
represent  tlie  general  thought  of  tlie  Church  (against 
Harnack,  I.  399).  But  when  all  this  is  admitted,  we 
still  see  that  the  idea  of  Christianity  as  a  "  new  Law  " 
here  introduced  must  bring  moral  ism  in  its  train. 
Christ  as  teacher  means  ultimately  that  man  can  be 
saved  by  learning  a  lesson  of  wisdom.  It  is  true  Jus- 
tin speaks  of  Abraham  and  others  as  saved  by  per- 
sonal faith  (Dial,  cxix;  xci);    but  he  is  ever  inclined 

rcHting  all  their  *'  hopes  on  a  man  that  was  crucified,"  and  be- 
cause of  this  expected  "some  good  thing  from  God"  {Dial. 
X.).  This  shows  that  the  Jews  knew  Christ  crucified  to  be  much 
more  than  a  Tc-icher  to  Justin  and  all  Christians.  Both  Christ 
the  Teacher  and  Christ  the  Atoner  were  held  by  Justin,  though 
not  in  clear,  consistent  relations.  And  this  confusion  as  lo 
Christ  reappears  in  the  teachings  about  Man's  relation  to  Christ. 
The  entrance  upon  <he  Christian  life  is  a  new  creatioit,  (I  Aj).  x. ), 
an  act  of  grace;  but  again  we  read  that  "each  man  goes  to 
everlasting  punishment  or  salvation  according  to  the  value  of 
his  actioii"^"  (xvii.).     Justin's  view  of  saving  faith  was  deficient, 

(1)  in  putting  the  intellectual  element — accepting  something  as 
true — too  much  in  the  foreground  (cf.  VonEngelhardt,  S.  188f.); 

(2)  though  this  is  not  all  his  view  of  faith  (against  Von  Eiigel- 
hardt),  for  he  holds  also  a  religious  factor  in  it — trust  in  God — 
(Dial.  cxix.  where  compared  to  Abraham's  faith,  or  Dial,  xcvii. 
of  case  of  brazen  serpent),  yet  he  puts  this  element  too  much  in 
the  background;  and  (3)  he  does  not  give  faith  its  central 
Pauline  position  in  the  Christian  life,  but  follows  here  more  in 
the  wake  of  the  Synoptists  and  James.  Imputed  righteousness 
and  actual  righteousness,  faitb  and  works,  he  cannot  think  apart; 
but  blends  them  in  his  one  central  thought  of  man's  inoral  rela- 
tion to  God  through  Christ.  This  relation  he  sums  up  in 
Christianity  as  a  new  "covenant  and  eternal  law  "  (Dial,  cxxii.), 
which  is  to  be  kept  as  the  condition  of  eternal  life  (I  Ap.  viii.). 


ii 


Legalism^  SacerdoUtlism^  A-icetici.sm. 


229 


liigel- 
otl— 

cvii. 
oil  in 
ntral 
ore  in 
sness 
part ; 

rela- 

p  in 
xii.), 

iii.). 


to  identify  faith  with  instriictit)n  in  truth  or  with  pi-r- 
sonal  righteousness.  It  is  not  mere  nioralism  to  think 
much  of  Christ  the  Judge,  witli  rewards  and  punislj- 
ments  (so  Von  Engelliardt);  for  Justin  sees  in  the 
reward  eternal  life  and  eomnuinion  with  God:  but  the 
overlooking  of  ever-present  fellowship  with  Christ 
shows  failure  to  grasp  the  full  doctrine  of  faith;  and 
resting  forgiveness  of  postd)aptismal  sins  upon  man's 
own  merits  shows  incapacity  to  connect  Christian  liv- 
ing with  Christ  its  source.* 

1   The   moralism  which  crept  into   Christianity   had  many 
possible  sources.     It  came  (1)  from  the  law  of  works — "Do  or 
die"  (Gen.  iii.   3)  written  on  every  man's  heart;    (2)  it  came 
from  the  best  in  Judaism,  which  put  the  law  in  tuo  lirst  place; 
(3)    it   found  support  in    New  Testament    teachings,    such    as 
those   of  James;   (4)   it  was  in  the  line  of   the  best   heathen 
thought,  which  culminated  in  Ethics,  or  life  according  to  right 
reason;  (5)  it  arose  naturally  because,  amid  j)agan  abominations, 
practical  piety  was  the  great  necessity  (cf.  Bigg,   p.  84);  (G)  it 
started  from  moral  living,  which  was  essential  to  Christianity, 
and  was  only  a  disproportion  of   truth,  by  putting  good  works 
in  the  place  of   faith  and  repentance;  (7)  the  application  of   the 
law  as  a  rule  against  heretics  (Clement  R.  ii.  9;  Ignatius,  Jfciff. 
ii.),  derived  from  Christ  and  the  Apostles  (ib.  v.  xiii. ;   Trull. 
vii.), promoted  legalism;  (8)  the  fact  that  the  practical  doctrines, 
the  appropriation  of  salvation,  must  fall  more  into  the  j)ower  of 
the  common   peoi)le,   and  the  further  fact  that  no  dispute   on 
these  doctrines  turned  Church  attention  to  tliem  favored  moral- 
ism; (9)  the  abuses  which  seemed  to  How  from  justification  by 
faith  alone  led  to  greater  prominence  of  pure  living  and  disci- 
pline; (10)  especially  did  Gnostic  anti-nomiauism,  which  robbed 
Christianity  of  its  ethical  foundation  (cf.   Schmid  8.  19),  lead 
the  Church  to  make  prominent  good  works—  Montanism  was  an 
acute  form  of  this  reaction  from   Gnostic  laxity;   (11)  even  the 
transcendent  view  of  Christ  which  prevailed,  by  losing  sight  of 
the   human  Jesus  too  much,  le«l  toward  communion  with   the 


I: 


'  M 


230 


Defectiie   View  of  Hedemj'tio^''-, 


y/} 


jii'!' 


The  succession  of  these  ideas  was  assumed  by  Iren- 
aeus.^  He  is  familiar  with  the  conception  that  Chris- 
tianity is  apian  of  God;  but  his  central  thought  is  that 
of  Jesus  Christ,  the  God-Man,  the  second  Adam,  the 
Restorer  of  Humanity  by  the  gift  of  immortality  both 
to  the  body  and  the  ijoul.  He  borrowed  this,  he  tells 
us,  from  Justin  (IV.  10,  2);  and  on  the  ground  of  the 
Nev/  Testament,  as  well  as  in  opposition  to  Gnosticism, 

exalted  Rerlceraer  through  sacraments  and  ordinances  rather 
than  by  holy  imitation  of  Ilis  life  on  earth;  and  (12)  finally  the 
great  attention  given  the  Old 'Testament  helped  promote  legal- 
ism. Even  Ritschl  observes  {HJntstchiinr/,  318)  that  the  Logos 
Christology,  though  opj)osing  Judaizing  tendencies,  had  a 
"  weak  side,"  which  led  to  a  breaking  through  of  the  insecure 
barriers  between  the  New  Law  and  the  Old,  and  gave  rise  to  a 
"jtartial  Judaizing  of  Gentile  Christian  life." 

The  .lets  of  Pav:  and  Thecla  represents  early  mission  work 
of  this  somewhat  moralistic  character.  Thecla  baptized  her- 
self "in  the  "ame  of  Jesus  Chi'ist"  (xxxiv.)  and  confessed;  "I 
am  the  handmaid  of  God;  and  He  who  is  with  me,  He  is  the  Son 
of  the  living  God,  in  whom  I  have  hoped.  For  he  is  the  term 
of  salvation"  (xxxvii.).  But  v.e  read  that  she  taught  inquirers 
'•all  the  commands  of  God,"  who  in  accepting  Christianity 
"believed."  Slie  first  met  Paul  "sitting  and  teaching  the 
commands  of  God."  God  helps  those  "who  believe  in  Him 
and  keep  His  commanhnents"  (xli).  Paul's  commission  to  her 
was:  "Go,  tcach  the  commands  and  words  of  God."  But 
conversion  is  described  as  "  light  from  Christ  Jesus,  who 
helped  those  who  keep  the  commandments  of  Christ"  (xlii.). 
Thecla's  appeal  to  her  pagan  mother  is  in  the  line  of  Ilerraas. 
She  says:     "Believe  there  is  one  God  in  heaven." 

^  The  theology  of  the  Ignatius-Irenaeus  School  was  Federal. 
It  followed  in  the  line  of  "  as  in  Adam  all  die,  eveu  so  in  Christ 
shall  all  be  made  alive"  (I  Cor.  xv.  22;  cf.  Irenaeus,  V. 
1,  3;  V.  16,  3;  V.  17,  3).  This  idea  of  Christ's  ''recajyi'tulans 
in  se  omnia^^  (IIL  18,  1)  Irenaeus  borrowed  from  Ephesians  i. 


!  ill  1 


li 


M 


Legalism ^  Sacerdotalism^  Asceticism. 


23i 


ermas. 

"ederal. 
Christ 
us,  V. 
}itulans 
nans  i. 


he  sought  to  relate  it  to  all  Christian  knowledge. 
The  original  unity  of  God  and  man,  a  free  nioral 
union  which  could  not  admit  Gnostic  dualism  and 
fate,  was  broken  by  the  fall  of  Adam;  then  Christ 
came  and  "  long  am  liominum  expositionem  in  f.eipso 
o'ecapitulavit''''  (III.  17,  1);  so  that  what  wa?  lost  in 
Adam  was  restored  in  Christ.  This  view  eniil)led 
Irenaeus  to  combine  the  life  of  Jesus  with  the  work  of 
the  preexistent  Christ  in  a  fruitful  way  not  found  in 
the  Apologists.  The  tree  of  the  cross  atoned  for  the 
tree  of  the  knowledge  of  good  and  evil.  But  by 
identifying  Christ  with  humanity,  to  restore  its 
broken  development  and  lead  it  to  a  glorious  consum- 
mation in  Himself  (cf.  Loofs,  S.  37),  Irenaeus  saved 
the  race  rather  than  the  individual.  He  sees  Christ 
becoming  incarnate  to  unite  humanity  to  Divinity  in 

10,  an  Epistle  which  Harnack  admits  {Ztft.  f.  Th.  u.  Kirche, 
1891,  il.  2)  is  Pauline  in  teachings;  thcugh  the  Apologetic  use 
of  the  thought  came  from  Justin.  This  union  of  all  things  in 
Christ  was  the  more  insisted  upon  by  Irenaeus  because  of  the 
Gnostic  dualism,  which  separated  most  men  necessarily  from 
Ctirist,  and  vsgarded  the  chief  work  of  the  "spiritual"  man  as 
consisting  in  separation  from  all  natural  things  (cf  Werner, 
S.  107).  Salvation  for  him  was  rather  a  restored  hnrmony  of 
God  and  the  universe,  of  soul  and  body,  and  not  a  division  be- 
tween them.  He  differed  from  the  Gnostics  here  as  the  S'oios  of 
his  day,  preaching  "  sympnthy  "  with  the  outer  world,  vliffercd 
from  the  early  Stoics,  who  taught  utter  "apathy"  ti ward  the 
world  of  matter.  The  one  view  was  optimistic,  looking  to  the 
elevation  and  ennobling-  of  the  world;  the  other  view  was  pessi- 
mistic, seeing  in  the  destruction  of  the  world  the  only  door  of 
hope.  The  Alexandrian  School,  with  Clement  preaching  otice 
more  "apathy"  toward  the  world  as  the  true  state  of  the  soul, 
fell  back  from  the  position  of  Irenaeus,  who,  according  to  Pres- 
sense,  ireed  theology  from  Platonic  abstractions  (1.  c.  ^  464). 


232 


Defective    View  of  Bedetnption, 


!  ., 


!3'  ?  i  ■ 


m"  I 


?!  - 


His  Person   and  restore  it  to  communion  witli  God 
(V.I,1). 

He  here  follows  the  New  Testament  in  huilding 
salvation  upon  the  Person  of  the  Divine  Man.  Tlie  first 
part  of  Christ's  work  was  to  undo  Adam's  sin ;'  this  He 
effected  by  triumphing  over  the  tem^itation  of  the  devil. 
The  second  part  of  his  work  was  finished  on  the  cross 
(HI.  IG,  D).  Perfect  obedience  and  perfect  sacrifice 
formed  tli(^  way  of  life.  But  both  were  connected 
with  deliverance  from  Satan.  Irenaeus  is  bound 
here  in  the  thoughts  of  Justin.  Only  God  can  take 
man  from  Satan ;  for  only  against  God  is  the  bondage 

1  But  Ircuaeus  taught  that  Jesus  did  much  more  than  lead  back 
to  the  unfalleii  Adam.  Robertson,  in  his  valuable  Prolegomena 
to  Vol.  VI.  of  the  Select  Lihi'ary  of  Nicene  and  post-JVicene 
Fathers,  well  observes:  "  To  Origen,  the  Incarnation  was  a 
restoraliou  to,  to  irenaeus  and  Athanasius  (cf.  Or.  ii.  G1),  an 
adoance  ttpon  the  original  state  of  man."  Through  the  incar- 
nation in  Jesus,  Irenaeus  sees  Christians  brouglit  into  oneness 
with  God  in  a  way  not  realized  in  Adam.  Werner  thinks  he 
went  too  far  here  in  brimming  the  idea  of  "  a  re-creation  of 
human  nature  graciously  granted  by  God."  making  man  de- 
pendent upon  God,  fron.  the  circumference  to  the  center  of 
'^^hrislianity,  and  thereby  threatening  the  very  nature  of  Chris- 
tianity by  putting  in  i)lace  of  "a  religious  moral  regeneration" 
of  man,  a  nature-like  mysterious  transformation  (1.  c.  S.  215f.). 
This  is  called  the  great  danger  in  the  teachings  of  Irenaeus. 
But  such  criticism  is  valid  only  on  the  ground  of  Kantian  pre- 
suj)positions,  which  declare  that  we  can  know  only  the  moral 
attributes  of  God,  not  God  llimself,  and  which  make  all  re- 
lation to  Him  ethical  and  indirect,  not  personal  and  real.  The 
saints  throughout  the  ages  assert  the  contrary,  and  hold  that 
"  God  with  us,"  the  God  consciousness,  what  Ritschl  denounces 
as  Pietism  and  IVIysticism,  the  K/iio  nii/stiat,  the  witness  of  the 
Spirit,  tlie  vision  of  God,  is  a  genuine  Christian  experience  and 
not  a  worldly  error. 


I 


1' 


Legalism^  Sacerdotalism^  Asceticism. 


233 


id  back 
romeua 
■N'icene 
was  a 
37),  an 
;  iiicar- 

inks  ho 

tion  of 

|ian  do- 

itcr  of 

Chris- 

ation  " 

215f.)- 

naeus. 

;in  prc- 

moral 

all  ro- 

The 

id  that 
ounces 
of  the 
ce  and 


iiiider  Satan  unjust.  But  man  went  freely  into  the 
power  of  the  devil  and  man  must  olioose  to  withdraw 
freely  from  that  power.  Only  the  Divine  Man  meets 
these  requirements;  therefore  the  Incarnation  was 
necessary  to  redemption.  The  devil  by  putting  Christ 
to  death  wrought  his  own  ruin  and  set  men  free;  but 
Irenaeus  cannot  explain  how  the  sacrifice  of  Christ 
was  really  connected  with  the  overthrow  of  Satan. 
He  only  knows  that  now  Humanity  is  free  from  the 
legal  authority  of  the  devil  and  the  guilt  of  the  race 
forgiven  for  Christ"'s  sake.  Because  of  this  deliverance 
all  men  are  able  to  obey  the  "  New  Law  "  and  merit, 
after  repentance  and  baptism,  the  favor  of  God. 
But  what  of  the  grace  of  God  which  gives  salvation  ? 
The  answer  to  this  inquiry  Irenaeus  finds  in  the  posi- 
tive side  of  Chi'ist's  work,  which  is  the  gift  of  immor- 
tality (II.  8,  7).  The  redemption  of  Christ  made 
man  able  to  decide  for  God ;  then  bv^  a  life  of  virtue 
he  must  earn  eternal  life.  Faith  and  g«")d  works, 
keeping  the  law  of  love,  makes  man  rigliicous;  and 
wdien  he  is  righteous,  as  Adam  was  before  the  fall,  he 
is  fit  for  union  with  God,  for  the  immortality  which 
is  the  reward  of  righteousness.  Thus  Irenaeus  seeks 
to  unite  the  diverging  views,  that  man  nuist  ])ecome 
riofhteous  to  deserve  eternal  life,  and  that  eternal  life 
is  a  free  gift  of  God.  Man  is  responsiid;.'  for  his 
righteousness,  and  God  is  gracious  in  giving  life  and 
imparting  Himself  (cf.  Werner,  S.  208). 

Here  we  touch  the  two  points  in  the  soteriology  of 
Irenaeus  most  criticised — his  ^loralism^  and  his  ]Mysti- 

^  Irenaeus  teaches  that  Christ  gave  tlie  true  knowledge  of 
God,  suffered  what  mankind  should  liave  suffered,  thus  becom- 
ing  the  principle  of    a  new  judgment   of    men  before    (iod, 


n 


iiiiii' 


'1 

■  j 

1  mm   ^ 

1 

1. . 

234 


Defective  Vieiv  of  Redemption^ 


cism.  So  far  as  the  first  is  concerned,  it  must  suffice  to 
say  that  he  fully  develoj)ed  the  legalism  of  the  Apos- 
tolic Fathers  and  the  Apologists.  He  was  led  to  do  so 
chiefly  because  the  attacks  of  Gnostics  upon  the 
Old  Testiiment  made  it  necessary  to  lay  stress  upon 
the  continuity  of  the  history  of  redemption,  and  in 
so  doing  he  put  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith 
in   the    background  to    make    prominent  what  the 


Old    and   New  Testaments   held 
the    Law    of    God.      The    other 


m    common,  viz., 
change — that    of 


and  finally  became  a  leaven  which  sanctifies  humanity  and 
imparts  immortality  to  it  (cf.  Seebcrg,  S.  88).  Through  com- 
munion with  Christ  we  receive  the  spirit  and  the  new  life. 
But  the  very  faith  which  leads  to  this  communion  is  regarded 
as  a  command  (IV.  13,  1);  and  the  repentance  and  pardon,  which 
come  with  faith,  do  not  so  much  give  permanent  salvation,  as 
rather  put  us  in  a  position  where  we  can  decide  to  obey  Christ 
and  thereby  save  ourselves  (IV.  6,  5).  He  cannot  grasp  Paul's 
view  of  justification  by  faith  alone  and  in  antithesis  to  works, 
because  he  can  never  think  of  justification  apart  from  obc  'ience 
to  Christ's  commands.  Faith,  instead  of  justifying,  was  con- 
sidered rather  as  a  stimulus  to  good  works,  as  a  recognition  of 
Christ  as  the  one  to  be  obeyed,  and  r-s  confidence  that  what  He 
said  was  true.  Faith  obeyed  a  lav,  of  love,  and  believed  that 
the  reward  of  such  obedience  was  immortality  Instead  of 
faith  being  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  Irenaoiis  regarded  it 
rather  as  the  presupposition  for  the  reception  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
(IV.  39,  2).  Here,  as  in  Justin,  the  intellectual  acceptance  of 
the  promises  of  God  as  true  was  too  much  identified  with  faith, 
to  the  neglect  of  the  element  of  personal  trust.  But  the  latter 
element  was  not  entirely  overlooked  (cf.  II.  20,  3) ;  regeneration 
in  baptism  and  all  spiritual  gifts  Avere  ascribed  to  divine  grace; 
hence  it  is  extreme  to  say  with  Werner  that  Irenaeus  utterly  re- 
versed the  order  of  religion  and  ethics,  making  the  latter  the 
root  instead  of  the  fruit  of  the  former. 


I 


Lefjallsm,,  Sacerdotalism.,  Ascetlcisrn. 


235 


Mysticism — is  preferred  by  the  school  of  Ritschl 
against  Irenaeus  and  other  theologians,  because  in 
summing  up  salvation  in  immortality  they  describe  it 
as  becoming  "partakers  of  the  Divine  nature  "  (II  Pet. 
i.  4).  Here  we  think  there  ia  grave  ground  for  ques- 
tion; for  the  '•'•  commixtio  et  communio  del  et  liomi- 
nis  "  taught  by  Irenaeus  (IV.  20,  4)  as  taking  place 
through  Christ,  was  traced  to  both  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments^;  this  deification  was  at  once  explained  as 
being  '■^  similes  factor  I  Deo^''  (III.  38,4)  and  as  an 
adoption  by  God  (III.  19,1);  the  terms  "son  of  God" 
and  "become  God"  are  used  interchangeably;  this 
oneness  with  God  is  ascribed  to  the  Holy  Spirit  (V. 
1,  1),  and  not  to  any  ecstasy;  it  is  mediated  by  Christ 
for  all  men,  a  view  which  can  only  mean  their  deliver- 
ance from  Satan;  finally,  the  position  given  Christ  as 
the  a])Solute  Divine  Man  shows  Irenaeus  had  no 
idea  that  man  was  deified  except  as  God  gave  him  im- 
mortal life-.  Harnack  incidentally  admits  (11.46, 
Note)  that  this  is  about  all  that  was  meant ;^  yet  the 
School  keeps  on  repeating  that  "  life  with  God  is  in 
its  heart  for  Irenaeus  not  an  inner  good,  but  a  hyper- 


1  Ps.  Ixxxi.  0  was  often  quoted;  also  Ileb.  iii.  14,  "par- 
takers of  Christ"  aud  vi.  4,  "  partakers  of  the  Holy  Ghost; 
also  II   Pet.  1.  4. 

-  Athanasiiis  in  a  similar  circle  of  thought,  says  that  to  re- 
late believers  to  God  as  Christ  was  related  to  God  was  i\r:anisni 
(f.  Ar.  iii.  1;  iii.  17). 

3  Schultz,  also,  -Die  Lc/ire  v.  d.  Gottheit  Christ.  S.  449, 
speaks  of  "  the  substantial  dedication  (  Verf/ottunr/)  of  humanity" 
through  Christ.  Only  the  Kantian  theory  of  knowledge  keeps 
him  from  saying  what  Peter,  John,  Ignatius,  Irenaeus,  and  all 
saints  since  have  said,  and  in  the  same  sense. 


236 


Defective   View  of  Redemption^ 


if-  1 


mW. 


'ii 


physical  process,"  by  Avhich  "  man  becomes  not  God's 
but  God"  (Werner,  S.  145).  In  opposition  to  Gnos- 
ticism, which  redeemed  the  soul  out  of  the  body,  Ircn- 
aeus  held  that  the  whole  man  was  made  immortal  by 
Christ.  His  thought  that  vita  hominis  {est)  vi.sio  del, 
(IV.  20,  7;  IV.  38,  3)  is  thoroughly  religious,  though  it 
may  not  present  "intercourse  with  God"  after  the 
manner  of  Herrmann.  Beyond  the  legitimate  argu- 
ment that  all  the  truth  of  Neo-Platonism  was  revealed 
in  Christianity,  there  is  little  in  the  "  deification '' 
doctrines  of  the  ante-Nicene  theology  which  is  not 
fully  covered  by  Bible  authority  and  Christian  ex- 
perience.* 

Beyond  these  teachings  of  Irenaeus,  the  Greek 
Church  made  no  advance.  Priestly  authority  took 
possession  of  the  Moralism  that  had  been  developed 
and  had  taken  the  place  of  justification  by  faith; 
good  works  Avere  part  of  the  treasure  of  the  Church. 
The  canonical  use  of  PauVs  writings  from  Irenaeus 
on  could  not  stem  the  tide  of  Legalism;  it  succeeded 
only  in  giving  a  deeper  conception  of  faith  and  works 
as  the  way  of  salvation.  In  the  West,  some  men  like 
Callixtus  taught  justification  ])y  faith  alone;  but  the 
doctrine  was  rightly  rejected,  because  made  a  cover 
for  mortal  sins  and  corrupt  living."  Only  in  Alex- 
andria was  the  cpiestion  of  redemption  again  worthily 

1  Ritschl  says  Irenaeus  followed  in  thisA'iew  the  teachings  of 
Peter  and  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.     Cf.  1.  c.  !S.   315f. 

2Cf.  Ilarnack,  Ztft.  f.  Th.  n.  7i7;r//f,  1801,  II.  2.  He 
says:  "Under  force  of  controversy  these  Christians  went  back 
to  the  theology  of  Paul  and  the  Apostles.  In  order  to  lower 
the  claims  upon  Christian  living,  they  exalted  the  grace  of  God, 
adoption  and  faith,  \iVi\,\iQXQ  silent  about  the  item  bh'th"  (S.  122). 


|: 


•I 


Legalism^  Sacerdotalism,  Asceticism. 


237 


treated.  The  early  school  here,  as  represented  by 
Origen,  sought  to  solve  the  problem  of  salv^ation  by 
grace  and  salvation  by  good  works,  through  the  dis- 
tinction of  two  kinds  of  Christians,  one  of  whom  were 
saved  throui^h  faith  in  Christ  the  Redeemer,  while  the 
other  were  brought  to  God  by  following  Christ  the 
Teacher  in  the  way  of  kno\vledge.  This  was  a  terrible 
mistake.  It  made  an  exoteric  and  an  esoteric  Chris- 
tianity. It  brought  the  "  two  ways "  of  Barnabas 
inside  the  Church.  It  made  the  ordinary  Christian 
find  salvation  in  Christ;  but  it  allowed  the  Gnostic 
Christian  to  save  himself  after  the  example  of  Christ.^ 
Origen,  whose  system  of  theology  included  all  previous 
Christian  thought,  sought  to  unite  salvation  l)y  faith 
with  salvation  by  knowledge,  in  the  view  that  the  latter 


or 

of 


Tlie  free  grace  of  God  was  hero  turned  into  lasciviousness; 
tlierefore  did  TertuUian  opjiose  it,  and,  unable  to  reproduce  the 
gospel  of  Paul,  he  planted  Christianity  upon  faith  and  severe 
discipline.  The  Protestant  teachings  of  the  Callixtian  party 
were  cast  aside  by  their  unholy  living,  and  the  way  they  tried 
to  make  Paul's  doctrines  of  grace  a  cover  for  continuance  in  sin. 

1  The  idea  of  faith  as  belief  in  the  reliability  of  persons  or 
things,  for  example  that  a  boat  would  float  on  water,  or  that 
what  a  witness  said  was  true,  passed  with  slight  change  from 
philosophic  thought  into  the  theology  of  Alexandria.  Cicmout 
understood  by  faith,  a  literal  acceptance  of  the  teachings  of 
Christ  through  res})ect  for  his  authority  (AVr.  ii.  12;  v.  1.).  It 
was  this  trust  in  authority  that  saved  the  ordinary  Christian; 
while  the  knowledge  and  the  love  of  the  good  fo'"  its  own  sake 
was  the  way  of  life  for  the  Gnostic  Christian  The  one  was  a 
servant  looking  for  a  reward,  the  other  was  a  sou  obeying  the 
truth  in  love.  The  one  fed  upon  the  "  little  mysteries"  of 
the  Sacraments;  the  other  enjoyed  the  "great  mysteries"  of 
the  Vision  of  God.  These  ideas  of  Clement  were  reproduced 
by  Origen. 


.!;• 


li' 


'i  ¥. 


238 


Defective  View  of  Jiedeinj^tiony 


is  a  continuation  of  the  former.  Knowledge  of  Christ 
is  only  a  deeper  faith  in  Him.  Perfect  trust  in  Him 
as  Redeemer  gives  full  knowledge  of  Him  as  Teacher. 
Here  is  the  first  theological  attempt  to  explain  the 
atonement.  Origen  saw  that  Christ  was  Teacher  and 
example;  but  he  saw  that  He  was  still  more  a  sacrifice 
for  sin;  how  were  these  to  berclatinl?  The  answer 
was  found  in  the  ap[)licati()u  of  Old  Testament  teach- 
ings about  sacrifice  to  Christ.*  The  Divine  Christ  is, 
on  one  side,  the  Logosof  the  universe  and,  on  the  other, 
a  redeeming  sacrifice.  Here  Origen  comlnnes  his  own 
idea  of  Christ  presenting  Himself  an  offering  to  the 
love  of  God,  with  the  view  of  Irenaeus  that  the  Lord 
was  a  ransom  to  meet  the  just  demands  of  Satan.  He 
propitiates  one.  He  redeems  from  the  otl;er.  Origen 
is  peculiar  in  lioldingthut  Christ  gave  Himself  a  ransom 
to  the  devil,  that  Satan  deceived  himself  in  accepting 
Christ  {In  JIatt.  xx.  28),  that  the  ransom  given  was 
the  human  soul  of  Jesus,  set  f<  'th  by  the  blood,  that 
it  was  for  all  men,  and  of  equal  value  wath  all  men. 
He  is  peculiar  also  in  making  Christ  a  sacrifice  to  God; 
but  not  a  vicarious  offering  for  the  pardon  of  sins, 
only  a  pure  perfect  offering,  and  as  such  acceptable. 
Here  again  the  divergent  thinking  about  salvation 
broke  through  and  prevented  a  full  acceptance  of  the 
Divine  Christ.  Because  the  Redeemer's  work  was  re- 
lated to  the  love  of  God  it  lacked  an  absolute  founda- 
tion; no  sacrifice  can  be  necessary  to  love.  Hence  it 
was  always  possible  within  this  theology  for  man  to  be 
forgiven  without  personal  relation  to  the  death  of 
Christ.   What  was  nccensary  in  this  plan  of  atonement 


1  He   mudo   them   look   toward  II  Cor.  v.   21,  which   sets 
forth  the  atoninor  sacritit-c  of  CIirLst. 


i  I 


Ij<'<j((Ji.'s}n^  Saverdotali^ia^  Aisceticis 


m. 


239 


1  was 
,  that 
meu. 
God; 
sins, 
able, 
ation 
f  tlie 
as  re- 
nda- 
ict  it 
to  be 
til  of 
iuieut 

sets 


was  to  satisfy  the  just  claims  of  the  devil  (cf.  Baur, 
1.  c.  S.  58). 

In  the  controversy  that  arose  about  the  tlieology 
of  Origcn  his  phil(>s(>[)hical  errors  were  lar<j;ely  set 
aside,  and  a  turn  taken  toward  a  closer  relation  of 
faith  and  knowledge.  But  even  Metlioilius,  the 
stoutest  anti-Origenist,  never  grasped  the  doctrine  of 
justification  ])y  faith.  For  him,  faith  meant  receiving 
the  truth  and  entrance  ujion  a  life  of  obtnlience, 
lighted  up  l)y  the  hope  of  immortality  (cf.  Seeberg, 
S.  149).  His  ruling  idea  is  that  by  ])aptism  the 
Holy  Spirit  l)egets  Christ  within  believers  —  a  truly 
Christian  thought  —  but  Christ  in  us,  he  says,  leads 
us  to  perfection  l)y  a  life  of  asceticism  and  virginity; 
a  purely  Catholic  conception.' 

1  Uaptizcd  into  the  name  of  Christ,  ho  says  (fiton/inf,  viii.  8), 
"  each  of  the  saints  by  ]>artaking  of  Christ  has  Ijoen  born  a 
Christ,"  they  "had  been  made  Christs."  Seeber<^(S,  149)  calls 
tlie  teaching  of  Metiiodius  "a  ))eculiar  niixtnre  of  thoughts 
from  current  Greek  philosojihy,  every-day  Cliristianity,  glowing 
desire  for  the  ascetic-ideal,  and  interest  in  the  problems  ])re- 
sentcd  by  Origeii.'"  Because  of  the  position  given  Clnist, 
llarnack  calls  this  ''  the  theology  of  the  future."  In  an  im- 
]>ortant  sense  tlnit  is  true;  for  the  Alexandrian  theolotry  with 
its  ,'ri-ors  stripi)ed  olf,  as  was  largely  done  by  MeUiodius,  the 
exaliwtion  of  the  Divine  Christ,  as  here  taught,  over  the  Church 
as  Creator,  over  the  Old  I'estament  as  revealer  ol'  (iod  l»y  the 
jtrophets,  as  object  of  worship  by  the  saints,  as  tiie  source  of 
life  and  light  to  every  Christian  and  to  the  whole  Church 
{/idiif/'fct,  iv;  v.),  such  theology  wa<  essentially  and  truly 
Christian;  but  when,  on  the  other  hand,  it  made  Christ  only 
"  the  Head  before  all  tin  e,"  jjroceeding  from  the  will  of  the 
Father  (/^.  ix.  .']),  it  fed  into  Arianism,  which,  all  critics 
admit,  Avas  far  less  Christian  than  the  position  of  Origen,  not 
to  speak  of  Athanasius. 


240 


Defective   View  of  Hedernption^ 


.1. 


Not  till  Athanasius  appeared  was  a  decided  step 
taken  toward  New  Testament  teachings.  His  cen- 
tral doctrine  was  that  Christ  became  man  that  man 
might  become  partaker  of  the  divine  nature  (^JJe 
I'ticarn.  liv.).^  All  that  Christ  did — His  birth,  life, 
death,  resurrection — He  did  for  us;  or  rather  we  did 
it  in  Him  (C.  -^1/'.  i.  13).  Only  God  could  save; 
only  man  needed  to  be  saved:  therefore  the  God-Man 
alone  could  bring  redemption.  Harnack  says  that 
the  doctrine  of  the  God-Man  was  a  necessary  product 

1  The  scheme  of  salvation  according  to  Athanasius  was  essen- 
tially as  follows:  (1)  Sin  brought  man  into  the  way  of  death  or 
gradual  annihilation,  because  by  the  loss  of  the  Logos  or  the 
image  of  God  in  man,  he  is  on  the  way  toward  dissoluil^n 
{iJe  Incarn.  iv;  v).  To  be  separate  wholly  or  partly  from  God 
is  to  be  sei)arated  from  what  is,  and  therefore  to  be  in  process 
of  destruction.  (2)  I3ut  to  let  man  be  annihilated  Avould  defeat 
God's  plan  for  humanity.  (3)  To  forgive  man,  ignoring  tlie 
penalty  of  death  which  was  threatened  against  sin,  would 
violate  God's  word  (vi).  (4)  Neither  could  repentance  by  man 
satisfy  the  just  claims  of  God,  nor  redeem  man  from  his  evil 
nature.  Therefore  (5)  the  Word  of  God  must  become  incar- 
nate (vii).  (G)  Mis  work  was  (a)  to  concpier  death  and  (b)  to 
restore  lite  (viii).  (7)  He  conquered  dentk  by  dying  to  pay  the 
debt  of  death  (xx),  and  by  His  resurrection  became  a  first-fruits 
giving  life.  (8)  He  died  on  the  cross  to  bear  the  curse  of  sin 
in  death  (xxv).  But  Athanasius  does  not  know  how  Christ's 
death  killed  death;  he  only  appeals  to  the  experience  of  Chris- 
tians that  no\v  for  them  death  has  no  terrors.  (9)  Christ  could 
not  have  immortality  (liren  to  Himself,  because  He  has  all 
things,  therefore  He  received  it  for  mankind  {C.  Ar.  i.  47;  cf. 
the  view  of  Anselm,  Cur  Deus  Homo,  ii.  19).  (10)  The  union 
of  Christ  with  mankind  was  real.  He  was  the  <xpxv  of  hu- 
manity; so  that  what  He  did  all  humanity  did.  Athanasius 
here  finds  it  difticult  to  separate  Christ  dying  for  Christians, 
and  Christ  imparting  life  to  the  human  race  as  such. 


Ije(ja lii< /yi ,  Sa cenlota lUin ,  Ascet ic ism. 


241 


God 
iccss 

the 
oukl 
man 
evil 
icar- 
))  to 
the 
nits 
sin 
ist's 
ris- 
iild 
all 
;cf. 
lion 
hu- 
nus 
ns, 


of  the  doctrines  of  redemption  (II.  5.'5).  Athanasius 
prefers  to  say  that  both  Scripture  and  Christian  ex- 
2)erience  demand  the  Divine  Christ.^  lie  says  if  the 
Lord  liad  only  the  religious  value  of  God,  then  our 
union  to  Him  would  avail  nothing.  Here  dualism 
was  removed  from  the  conception  of  Christ,  and  also 
set  aside  from  the  view  of  redemption;  for  Athanasiiis 
restored  to  theology  Christ  as  Redeemer  from  sin,  and 
set  aside  the  too  prominent  idea  of  Christ  as  Teacher  of 
self-redemption  through  self-knowledge.  He  united 
the  diverging  lines  of  faith  and  knowledge  in  the 
thought  of  forgiveness  of  sin  as  the  one  way  to  life 
and  blessedness.  He  thus  put  natural  theology 
nearer  its  proper  place,  and  made  it  but  a  tutor  to 
lead  to  Christ. '"  He  followed  Origen  in  holding  that 
Christ  wrought  both  propitiation  and  redemption  by 
His  sacrifice;  but  he  looked  upon  salvation  as  deliv- 
erance from  death,  the  result  of  sin,  rather  than  as 
deliverance  from  Satan.  ^  He  agjreed  with  Oriiiren 
that  Christ  offered  Himself  to  the  love  of  God;  but 
he  added  to  that  the  idea  that  Christ  offered  Himself 
also  to  the  righteousness  of  God,  which  must  exact 
death  as  the  threatened  penalty  of  sin  (/><?  Inatrn. 
vi;  ix).  No  man  could  be  a  Christian  by  following 
the  "  New  Law";  he  must  have  the  life  of  Christ  in 
him   and  follow  Christ  as  his  example  and  Lord.  * 

1  Coiit.  Ar.  ii.  69;  i.  11;  iv.  5;  iv.  20. 

2  Cont.  Ar.  i.  4,  17;  iJe  Tncarn.  ii.  f. 

3  C  Ar.  i.  21;  De  lacarn.  iv. 

*  Athanasius  taught  (l),in  opposition  to  the  views  of  Clement 
and  Origen,  and  of  all  Hellenistic  j)erversion  of  Christianity, 
that  man  is  not  saved  by  any  form  of  Gnosticism,  not  by 
knowledge  of   God   and  the  universe,  not  by  self-culture,  not 


r^ 


i: 


''  t, 


242 


Defective   View  of  Redemption, 


Here  A  thanasius  laid  stresH  upon  two  lines  of  thought 
which  are  now  prominent  in  modern  theology;  first 
that  which  connects  Christ's  work  of  atonement  with 
all  spiritual  laws  that  help  make  it  intelligible,  and 
second  that  which  unites  it  closely  with  the  life  that 
flows  from  it  (cf.  Orr.  1.  c.  p.  342).  But  in  the  cen- 
ter is  the  Divine  Christ  Incarnate,  who  alone  can 
save.  Arianism  was  the  logical  outcome  of  the  view 
that  Christ  is  a  Teacher;  and  it  called  naturally  only 
for  a  life  of  knowledge  and  virtue  as  taught  by 
Christ.     But  forgiveness  of  sin,  salvation  as  grasped 

by  any  wisdom  that  exalts  the  sago  above  the  peasant;  but  (2), 
as  Paul  tauglit,  by  repentance  toward  God,  faith  in  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  and  forgiveness  of  sins.  He  pointed,  not  to  the 
Reason  of  the  universe  enlightening  the  wise  man  through 
Jesus  Christ,  but  preached  the  Word,  who  became  flesh,  as  iu 
the  Fourth  Gospel,  to  save  sinners.  "  The  thought  of  redemp- 
tion through  Christ,  through  an  act  of  God  —  not  through 
us  —  is  the  center  of  the  whole  Athanasian  theology  "  (Sohm, 
S.  42).  And  such  soteriology  proved  Arianism  to  be  but  a 
foundation  of  sand. 

Alhanasius  found  both  the  teachings  of  Scripture  (Or.  c.  Ar. 
i,  llf. ;  iv.  5)  and  the  consciousness  of  salvation  (ii.  69)  demand 
a  Divine  Christ.  lie  says:  "  J.  the  Son  were  a  creature, 
then  man  remains  nothing  but  mortal,  not  l)eing  united  to  God. 
...  A  part  of  creation  could  not  be  the  Saviour  of  creation 
needing  salvation  itself "  {ib.).  Christ  came  from  without 
creation  and  humanity  that  He  might  offer  Himself  for  all. 
"  All  died  iu  Christ,  therefore  all  may  through  Him  become 
free  from  sin  and  its  cause,  truly  abiding  forever,  rising  from 
the  dead  and  putting  on  immortality  and  iucorruption."  Con- 
ditional immortality  underlay  not  a  little  of  the  thinking  of  the 
aute-Nicene  Church.  The  correlate  to  this  conception  was  life 
through  oneness  of  man  with  God.  That  such  a  oneness  is 
possible  ai)})earedin  the  Incarnation  (cf.  Irenaeus,  III.  19);  that 
it  is  actual,  the  gospel  proclaimti  and  Christian  experience  con- 


i'o:ition 


Lc(jidis)n^  Sacerdotalism,  Am'ctit'idm.  243 

by  Athanasius,  meant  both  u  Divine  Redeemer,  and  a 
vital  union  with  Him,  tliat  inclu  1  'd  all  that  Origen 
meant  by  both  faith  and  kno\vl<'di;t!.  A  redeemed 
man  does  not  walk  to  liberty  in  his  own  wisdom  and 
virtue,  l)Ut  through  the  merey  and  help  of  another. 

It  might  ))e  supi)osed  that  the  return  here  made 
to  Christ  as  Saviour,  and  life  in  Ilim  as  the  way  of 
pardon,  would  have  led  the  Greek  Church  ])ack  to 
Apostolic  docti'ine  and  purity;  but  a  glance  at  the 
Church  system  round  about  Athanasius    shows  the 

firms  (so  Ilippolytns,  De  Christo  et  AnlU'hr.  vii.).  Origen 
said  (f.  kM.  iii.  28):  "From  Him  (ChriHt)  began  the  inner 
blending  of  the  divine  with  the  human  nature,  tlia*  the  human, 
through  communion  with  the  divine,  might  become  itself 
deitied,  not  only  in  Jesus,  but  in  all  who  receive  life  by  faith." 
Methodius,  though  opposing  Origen,  also  regarded  Christianity 
a:  pel  t'ection  of  creation  in  Christ.  This  line  of  thought 
Athanasius  followed,  though  witli  modifications  due  to  greater 
prominence  given  to  Christ  as  Redeemer  from  sin,  and  with 
more  stress  upon  Christian  experience.  Yet  he  still  says 
{A?'ia/h  ii.  70):  "  Becoming  man  He  is  the  beginning  of  a  new 
creation;  the  human  race  is  assumed  by  God  in  Him."  And 
*'  our  renewal  is  founded  before  us  in  Christ,  that  we  in  Him 
can  also  be  restored  "  (JJe  Inair.  xliv.  6;  xi.  3).  But  it  is  not 
correct  to  call  this  view  a  "physical  doctrine  of  redemption" 
(Loofs).  The  New  Testament  makes  Christians  one  with 
Christ,  as  the  branches  with  the  vine  and  the  members  with 
the  body;  we  are  "  partakers  of  the  divine  nature"  (II  Peter 
i.  4).  Here  is  taught  essentially  all  that  Irenaeus,  Callixtus, 
and  Athanasius  mean  by  "being  made  God";  though  it  is 
develoj)ed  and  colored  by  the  philosophic  thought  of  their  age. 
Irenaeus  (V.  2,  3)  appeals  to  Eph.  v.  30,  "we  are  members  of 
His  body,  of  His  flesh  and  of  His  bones,"  as  proof  of  what  he 
meant  by  both  body  and  soul  of  the  Christian  being  united  to 
Christ,  so  as  to  insure  the  resurrection  of  the  one  and  the  im- 
mortality of  the  other. 


pi!  i! 


244 


Defective   Vieio  of  Redemption^ 


futility  of  such  a  hope.  He  was  still  largely  captive 
to  his  environment.  He  clearly  teaches  that  we  are 
sons  of  God  "not  by  nature  but  by  adoption"  (6'. 
Ar.  i.  22;  iii.  19);  yet  elsewhere  he  cannot  get  rid  of 
the  thought  that  ail  humanity  share ,  the  Sonship  of 
Christ  (iZ>.  i.  22;  iii.  9).  He  knows  that  salvation 
comes  from  communion  with  Christ;  but  he  cannot 
€xtend  the  work  of  redemption  over  post- baptismal 
sins.^  He  sees  that  all  salvation  flows  through  Christ; 
but  he  magnifies  the  mysteries  of  the  sacraments  to 
make  them  a  channel  of  eternal  life  also.  The  Divine 
Christ  was  exalted  sufficiently  to  blot  out  the  dis- 
tinctions of  faith  and  knowledge;  but  not  enough  to 
set  aside  sacerdotalism,  sacramentarianism  and  the 
monkish  life. 

The  New  Testament  Church  was  a  brotherhood 
with  the  ever-present  Christ  in  their  midst.  But 
Ignatius  put  the  Bishop  and  presbyters  in  the  midst. 
Barnabas  called  the  brotherhood  a  new  Israel. 
Clement  called  the  primitive  clergy  Levites.  Irenaeus 
made  the  Episcopacy  guardians  of  truth  and  purity. 
The  drift  from  republic  to  Empire  in  Rome  was  re- 
flected in  the  life  of  the  Church.  Priests  and  bishops 
came  in  to  rule  the  Church  because  the  thouc-ht  of 
Christ  as  head  and  constitutor  of  every  group  of  be- 
lievers into  a  Republic  of  God  was  lost. 

This  loss  of  liberty  was  accompanied  by  a  loss  of 
holiness.  The  Church  with  Christ  consciously  in  the 
midst  must  be  a  body  of  saints.  The  Church  ruled 
by  a  bishop,  who  claimed  divine  right  in  life  and 
doctrine,  showed  itself  at  once  a  mixture  of  converted 

^  What  Christ  really  added  to  man's  life  of  virtue  was 
"the  way  to  Paradise"  {ih.  i.  22   a  view  like  that  of  Irenaeus). 


^^^ilB 


M 


Legalism^  Sacerdotalism^  Asceticism. 


245 


and  unconverted  men.  It  is  not  accidental  that 
Callixtus,  the  first  Hierarch  conscious  that  he  was 
such,  was  the  first  to  declare  that  no  sin  should  keep 
a  man  out  of  the  Church  who  submitted  to  the 
bishop. 

A  very  important  factor  in  this  transition  was  the 
changed  view  of  the  sacraments  which  appeared.  We 
have  seen  how  baptism  was  regarded  as  blotting  out 
all  previous  sins,  and  as  imparting  the  Holy  Ghost. 
This  holy  washing  was  called  Regeneration,  Illumi- 
nation, and  tli(}  Seal.  Harnack  (I.  151),  and  Hatch 
(1.  c.  p.  295)  think  these  terms,  used  as  early  as 
Justin  (I  A2).  Ixi. ;  Dial,  xiv.)  and  Hermas,  were  bor- 
rowed from  the  pagan  mysteries.  But  Anrich  shows 
that  this  view  is  improbable  (1.  c.  S.  119).  The 
baptism  of  John  and  that  taught  by  Christ  looked 
toward  repentance  and  entrance  into  the  Kingdom  of 
God.  Jewish  proselyte  baptism  was  regarded  as  a 
washing  away  ot  sins  and  a  "  new  birth."  *  The  words 
of  Christ  to  Nicodemus  and  his  reference  to  his  own 
death  as  a  baptism  show  further  that  there  are  suf- 
ficient points  of  departure  in  the  New  Testament  for 
the  early  diversion  of  baptism,  without  calling  in 
heathen  influences.^  Ignatius  says  Christ's  sufferings 
purified  the  water  {J^l^h.  xviii.  2);  later  Fathers 
identified  the  water  organically  with  the  Holy  S])irit, 
so  that  washing  in  baptism  was  considered  one  with 
regeneration.^  What  Paul  regarded  as  incidental, 
Hermas  declared  so  essential  that  Abraham  could  not 

1  Cf.  Weber,  Systetn  der  altsynagog.  Thcologle,  Leipsisr. 
1880,  S.  75,  320. 

2  See  Acts  x.  47;  I  Cor.  vi.  11;  Gal.  iii.  27;  I  Cor.  xv.  29. 
8  So  Tertullian,  De  Bap.   iv. ;  Cyprian,  Ep.  Ixxii. 


'\ 


F    4 


'!|  . 


I!.; 


it, 

1:1) 


II  ii!i 


!^'li' 


:i' 


■'.  Mir 


246 


Defective   View  of  Redemjytion^ 


enter  Paradise  till  he  was  baptized.  The  symbol 
largely  thrust  out  the  Saviour.  Instead  of  personal 
faith  followed  by  baptism,  it  was  henceforth  baptism, 
presupposing  teaching  and  faith.  Baptism  was  called 
a  seal,  partly  because  the  Jews  so  spoke  of  circum- 
cision, as  Paul  and  Barnabas  also  did  (Rom.  iv.  11; 
Barnab.  ix.  6),  and  partly  because  of  the  heathen 
custom  of  branding  slaves  or  prisoners,  and  especially 
soldiers  when  they  took  the  sacramentum^  or  oath  of 
allegiance.  The  New  Testament  uses  the  same  figure 
to  express  the  work  of  the  Spirit  (Eph.  i.  13;  iv.  30; 
Rev.  vii.  2).  The  term  "illumination"  suggests  the 
heathen  mysteries,  and  Clement  of  Alexandria  refers 
to  it  in  that  connection.  But  there  is  no  proof  that 
the  baptismal  use  of  this  word  came  from  Paganism 
(cf.  Anrich,  S.  123).  What  Justin  and  Clement 
found  given  in  baptism  was  knowledge,  and  not  a 
sudden  enlightenment  such  as  the  heathen  meant  by 
(pooTi6jiio?.  The  New  Testament  idea  of  passing  from 
darkness  to  light  (cf.  Heb.  vi.  4;  x.  32)  gives  all 
that  Justin  thinks  of;  while  Clement  ever  introduces 
Christ  as  the  Great  Mystagogue,  showing  that  little 
more  than  the  form  of  his  thought  was  Greek.  But, 
whatever  the  source  of  these  wrong  ideas  about 
baptism,  the  serious  error  in  them  arose  (1)  in 
bri»js,irig  the  sinner  only  indirectly  into  relation  to 
the  Saviour,  and  (2)  in  practically  bidding  Christ, 
as  Redeemer,  farewell  at  the  waters  of  baptism. 

More  closely  connected  with  heathen  mysteries 
and  more  dangerous  to  the  doctrines  of  redemption 
were  the  perverted  views  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  It 
arose  in  connection  with  the  Passover,  which — the 
school  of  Ritschl  to  the  contrary — made  it  stand  from 


■if 


Ml 


Legalism^  Sacerdotalism^  Asceticism. 


247 


rom 
all 
uces 
ittle 
But, 
ibout 
in 
on  to 
irist, 


iption 

It 

—the 

from 


the  first  for  the  remission  of  sins  through  the  sacrifice 
of  Christ.^  It  was  also  a  brotherly  meal,  such  as 
Essenes  and  pagan  collegia  celebrated ;  it  was  eaten  at 
night,  and  by  the  baptized  alone.  Persecution  made 
this  meal  more  secret,  till,  from  Justin  on,  it  ap- 
peared much  like  the  pagan  mysteries  in  the  eyes  of 

1  Harnack,  following  Spitta  and  others  in  his  effort  to  take  the 
vicarious  teaching  from  the  Lord's  Supper,  tries  to  show  that 
the  early  elements  used  in  its  observance  were  bread  and  water. 
From  this  "  a  new  general  view  is  gained"  (Texteund  Untersuch- 
ungen,  Bd.  VII.  2,  S.  115-144)  according  to  which  "the  Lord 
consecrated  the  weightiest  function  of  ordinary  life  (eating  and 
drinking)  by  designating  the  nourishment  as  His  body  and  blood" 
(S.  142).  ButZahn  {K  Kirchl  Ztft.  1892,  IL  4)  gives  good 
reasons  for  rejecting  such  a  theory.  The  text  of  Justin  (I  Ap. 
liv;  lix.)  upon  which  Harnack  builds,  also  Clement,  Irenaeus 
and  others,  speak  of  water  used  for  wine  in  the  Lord's  Su[)per, 
but  always  as  a  heretical  practice.  Schultzen  [I)<is  Abetulmahl 
im  Neuen  Testament.  GUttingen,  1895)  has  shown  so  convinc- 
ingly that  the  Lord's  Supper  was  from  the  first  related  to  the 
death  of  Christ,  that  Lobstein  admits  the  view  of  Si)itta,  Weiz- 
sacker  and  his  own  in  this  respect  must  be  corrected  by  the  re- 
sults of  Schultzen's  work  (cf.  Theol  Lit.  Ztg.  1896.  No.  9). 
Kaftan,  too,  {Das  Wesen  d.  Chr.  Reliyion,  II.  311)  holds 
that  Jesus  as  well  as  Paul  connected  forgivener^  of  sins  with  the 
sacrificial  death  of  Christ,  lie  says  that  Jesuh  chiiniod  divine 
honor  and  identified  the  Kingdom  of  God  with  Himself,  who  as 
God  forgives  sins  (II.  334).  "Holy  Love,  as  it  appeared  in 
Jesus,  formed  the  proper  Being  of  God  "  (338).  Yet  He  is  not 
really  God;  but  is  ethically  divine.  He  is  "the  human  being, 
in  whom  God  let  the  Fullness  of  His  Eteriial  Being  dwell,  so 
that  He  is  for  us  the  image  of  the  invisible  God."  That  is,  he 
is  a  man  filled  with  the  love  of  God,  he  is  dynamically  God;  or 
so  full  of  certain  divine  attributes,  that,  like  a  man  charged  with 
electricity,  he  conveys  the  shock  of  a  new  life  to  us,  in  the  com- 
munion of  the  Church  and  the  sacraments. 


I^T 


Hi 


m 


II. 


jJ:HJ  ill 


ill  ' 

W'  ill 


248 


Defective   Vieiv  of  Redemption, 


heatlien.^  The  Alexandrian  School,  with  its  love  of 
allegory,  regarded  the  Lord's  Supper  as  especially  a 
mystery.  More  and  more,  from  Apologetic  and  other 
influences,  the  terminology  of  pagan  mysteries  was  ap- 
plied to  the  Christian  sacraments,  till  in  the  fourth  and 
fifth  centuries  the  identification  of  language  was  al- 
most complete. 

Within  this  form  of  mystery,  the  conception  of  the 
Lord's  Supper  changed  in  the  following  du";ction: 
The  New  Testament  Church  spoke  of  all  worship  as 
sacrifice;  the  post- Apostolic  Fathers  applied  the  term 
sacrifice  especially  to  the  prayer  and  gifts  offered  at 
the  Lord's  Supper;^  next,  the  idea  of  sacrifice  was  trans- 
ferred to  the  Supper  itself;  the  bread  and  wine  were 
given  the  virtue  of  Christ's  atonement  and  finally  they 
were  identified  with  the  Lord's  body  and  blood ;  so 
that  in  the  third  century  the  Supper  was  regarded  as  a 
sacrifice  offered  by  Christ  for  the  Church,  instead  of  an 
offering  presented  by  the  Church  to  Christ.  It  was 
Athanasius  w^ho  went  beyond  the  realistic  view  of  the 
Apostolic  Fathers  and  xVpologists,  and  beyond  the 
symbolical,  mystical  view  of  Clement  and  Origen,  to 
the  metabolic  theory  that  the  bread  and  wine  became 


JV 


1  This  too  mystical  tendency  early  appeared.  Ignatius  called 
the  Lord's  Supper  "medicine  of  immortality,"  and  an  "antidote 
against  death  "  {Eph.  xx.  2).  In  his  mind  the  mystery  of  life 
is  more  prominently  connected  with  the  Supper  than  with  Bap- 
tism. Irenaeus,  as  we  have  seen,  followed  this  lead,  and  put 
the  resurrection  of  the  bodj^  in  causal  connection  with  participa- 
tion in  the  Lord's  Supper  (cf.  IV.  31,  4,  and  Anrich,  S.  181). 
From  him  on,  the  view  was  widespread  that  the  holy  bread  and 
wine,  like  tlic  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord,  fed  and  strengthened 
eternal  life  in  Christians. 

2  CI.  Mai.   i.    11  f.;  and  the  JJklache,  xiv. 


3   of 

lya 
ther 
\  ap- 
^and 
8  al- 

•f  the 

ition: 

lip  as 
term 

red  at 

trans - 

}  were 

ythej 

>od;  so 
d  as  a 
of  an 
t  was 
of  the 
nd  tlie 
^en,  to 
3ecRme 

18  called 
autidote 
U  of  life 
ith  Bap- 
ancl  put 
avticipa- 
S.  181). 
read  and 
gthened 


Legalism^  Sacerdotalism^  Asceticism. 


249 


"  entirely  transformed,"  as  was  done  at  Cana  in  Gali- 
lee (cf.  Thomasius,  I.  434).  The  chief  factors  in 
this  change  of  view  were  the  prominence  given  in  the 
Supper  to  the  death  of  Christ,  the  assumption  of 
priestly  functions  by  the  clergy,  some  influence  from 
the  pagan  mysteries,  but  especially  a  failure  to  grasp 
the  finished  redemption  of  Christ  as  ever  present  to  the 
believer.  The  real  preseii^e  was  limited  to  bread  and 
wine,  instead  of  being  found  in  every  Christian;  it 
was  put  in  the  hands  of  the  clergy  and  not  in  the  hearts 
of  all  believers.  The  result  was  that  the  merits  of  the 
one  sacrifice  for  sin  were  overlooked,  and  man  re- 
garded it  as  a  merit  on  his  part  to  cause  the  sacrifice  of 
Christ  to  be  repeated.^ 

This  Moralism,  which  captured  the  sacraments, 
took  most  striking  form  in  Monasticism.  The  monk 
followed  a  leading  idea  of  Greek  theology,  which 
regarded  salvation  as  separation  from  the  world.^ 
He  interpreted  this  to  mean,  first,  imitation  of  Jesus 
and  then  imitation  of  Christ.  Asceticism,  a  life  of 
poverty,  chastity,  obedience,  meant  following  the  lowly 
Jesus.  Contemplation,  ending  in  the  beatific  vision 
of  God,  meant  to  ascend  to  heaven  with  Christ.  New 
Testament  teachings,  historic  circunistauces,  the  in- 
fluence of  heathenism  all  helped  produce  Monasticism; 
but  none  of  these  weighed  so  much  as  the  false  theory 
of  man's  relation  to  Christ.  The  pupils  of  Origen 
regarded  the  Gnostic  and  the  ascetic  as  the  true  ty|)es 
of  Christian  living  (cf.  Harnack,  II.  424);  that  is, 
knowledge  and  the  life  of  superiority  to  the  world 

1  Cf.  Tertullian,  De  Corona.,  iii;    Cyprian,  De  liesur.  viii. 

2  This  idea  had  also,  of  course.  New  Testament  support. 
Cf.  II  Cor.  vi.  17;  Ileb.  vii.  26. 


IT" 

1\ 


^l 


f 


r 

hi 


i< 


■# 


ii 


U'^ 


ilj^ 


it 


I 

I! 


250 


Defective   Vieiv  of  Medemjytioriy 


made  the  ideal  man.  But  it  is  plain  such  a  theory 
lands  us  in  the  place  of  learners,  with  Christ  as  nothing 
but  a  great  teacher.  The  monk  needs  no  Saviour; 
he  is  a  self- redeemer  like  the  Stoic  or  any  other 
moralist.*  In  the  fourth  century,  when  worldliness 
was  pressing  hard  into  the  Church,  ev^ery  form  of 
piety  was  combined  againstit;  hence  asceticism,  which 
was  fully  developed  among  the  heathen,  with  no 
Christ  in  it,  when  adopted  by  Christians  did  not  find 
a  place  for  Him  as  Redeemer.  The  Neo-Platonist 
thought  that  through  the  contemplation  of  nature  he 
became  partaker  of  God;  so  the  monk  in  rapt  de- 
votion might  reach  God  without  the  saving  help  of 
Christ.  The  Church  fell  again  into  two  classes; 
ordinary  Christians  who  were  saved  hj  the  potent 
mysteries  of  the  sacraments,  and  ideal  Christians — 
the  monks — who  saved  themselves  by  good  works 
and  ecstasy;  but  both  had  lost  sight  of  Christ  as 
perfect  Kedeemer  of  men.'^ 

1  How  strong  the  spirit  of  self-redemption  was  among 
Western  monks  can  be  seen  (1)  in  their  rejection  of  justification 
by  faith  alone  when  taught  by  Jovinian,  and  (2)  in  tbeir  ad- 
vocacy of  semi-Pelagianism  against  Augustine. 

2  The  loss  of  the  gospel  conception  of  personal,  li .  :ng 
union  throughout  life  of  the  believer  with  the  exalted  Christ 
was  followed  inevitably  by  the  wrong  soteriology  of  the  early 
Church:  (1)  Because  He  was  not  felt  to  be  the  head  of  every 
Christian  man  and  every  congregation,  bishops  and  other  heads 
arose.  (2)  Because  direct  personal  communion  with  Him  was 
obscured,  the  Church  and  the  Sacraments  came  in  between  the 
soul  and  the  Saviour,  thus  not  only  bringing  in  a  hierarchy  but 
perverting  the  whole  conception  of  man's  relation  to  Christ. 
(3)  Because  constant,  direct  approach  to  Christ  was  lost,  a 
thousand  indirect  approaches   by  washings,  fastings,    visions. 


• 


Christ 
early 
I  every 
I  heads 
was 
jn  the 
ly  but 
yhrist. 
host,  a 
lisions, 


'•"} 


Legalism,  Sacerdotalism,  Asceticism. 


251 


ascetic  practices,  confessions,  came  into  use.  (4)  Because  the 
witness  of  Christ  by  His  Spirit  in  the  heart  was  largely  over- 
looked, too  much  stress  was  laid  upon  intellectual  forms  of 
faith,  philosophical  proofs  of  Christianity,  and  theological 
creeds.  (5)  This  loss  of  the  present  Christ  in  the  midst  of 
the  worshiping  congregation  was  followed  by  a  more  formal 
worship,  in  which  liturgies,  elaborate  ceremonies,  and  theo- 
logical statements,  too  much  took  the  place  of  the  free 
charismatic  prayers  and  teachings  of  the  primitive  Church.  (6) 
Iji  life  also,  as  the  thought  was  obscured  that  Christ  dwells  in 
each  believer,  a  loss  of  holiness  followed.  To  have  the  rules 
of  the  Church,  to  follow  her  discipline,  was  a  lower  standard 
than  to  "have  the  mind  of  Christ."  From  the  individual  this 
view  spread  to  the  Church.  For  the  New  Testament,  believers 
were  a  temple  of  God;  for  Callixtus,  the  Church  was  the  ark  of 
Noah,  full  of  both  clean  and  unclean  creatures.  (7)  Finally, 
this  loss  of  Christ  as  King  in  each  Christian  changed  the  whole 
missionary  character  of  the  Church.  Instead  of  all  preaching — 
"  let  him  that  heareth  say,  come" — the  clergy  preached  and  the 
laity  listened;  or  monks  went  out,  spreading  their  defective 
views  of  Christianity. 


1' 


"  %■■ 


¥  ij 


hi 


h:^ 


LECTURE    V. 


f  §(5  Boctnni  o!  f^e  H>ofp  Spirit  anJ»  f§s  f  rinifp  ag  n(5«0Mrifp 
in&o£&«i»  in  ii)<xt  of  (i>od  and  i§<j  £>i&iTje  €§mf. 


268 


"  No  man  can  say,  Jesus  is  Lord,  but  in  the  Holy  Spirit." 

Paul.     I  Cor.  xii.  3. 


*'  Nee  enim  ignoramus  unum  Deum  esse  et  unum  Christum 
esse  Dominum,  quern  confessi  sumus,  unum  Spiritum  Sanctum, 
unum  episcopum  in  catholioa  ecclesia  esse  debere." 

Ep.  of  Cornelius  of  Rome,  in  Routh,  III.  19. 


r 

hi 


W:' 


I 


Jin 

if' ' 


"Die  gewaltige  craft  des  vatters,  die  wisheit  des  stines,  die 
minne  des  heiligen  geistes  muse  uns  unser  herze  und  unser  sele 
mit  craft  besitzen.     Amen." 

Treatise  of  Nicolas  of  Basle,  of  the  year  1356. 


"  There  is  nothing  peculiar  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity, 
anything  near  so  perplexing  as  eternity  is;  and  yet  the  gentle- 
men who  are  for  discarding  mysteries  are  forced  to  believe  it." 
Waterland.      Works,  vol.  I.  pt.  II.  p.  225. 


Hi 


254 


\U 


'!i! 


LECTURE  V. 

The  doctrine  of  the  holy  spirit  and  t'ie 
trinity  as  necessarily  involved  in  that  of 
god  and  the  divine  christ. 

A  characteristic  test  of  a  man's  theology  may  be 
found  in  his  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  The 
Apostolic  Church  was  born  at  Pentecost,  and  went 
forth  preaching  salvation,  sent  by  God  the  Father, 
brought  by  the  Divine  liedeeraer,  and  wrought  in  the 
hearts  of  believers  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  course  of 
thought  in  the  Church  for  the  following  four  centuries 
was  little  more  than  an  attempt  to  defend  and  elabo- 
rate the  teachings  of  the  primitive  baptismal  formula. 
The  Nicene  theology  culminated  in  the  doctrine  of  the 
Spirit.  "No  man  can  say  that  Jesus  is  the  Lord,  but 
by  the  Holy  Ghost  (I  Cor.  xii.  3)";  that  was  the 
teaching  of  Paul.  No  man  can  believe  that  the  Son 
is  consubstantial  with  the  Father,  without  also  accept- 
ing the  full  divinity  of  the  Holy  Spirit;  that  was  the 
conclusion  of  the  Nicene  theologians.  All  men  are 
agreed  that  the  New  Testament  Church  was  pre- 
eminently guided  and  inspired  by  the  Spirit;  the  only 
question  is:  What  was  meant  by  this  inspiration  of 
the  Spirit,  and  what  was  the  Spirit  that  filled  the 
Church  ?  Harnack  describes  the  indwelling  of  God 
in  the  first  Christians  as  "  enthusiasm."  They  were 
charismatic,     enthusiastic   and,    therefore,    s[>iritua]. 

256 


miv 


i 


w^^ 


'ill ' 


m  ' 

I  '< 

r. 

1  ■     ^ 

250 


7Vie  II(^hj  Ghost  and  Trhiltij 


This  enthusiasm  belonged  to  all  Christians.  Kaftan 
tells  lis  with  emphasis  *  that  the  Apostles  j^ossessed 
the  Spirit  in  no  way  different  from  other  believers;^ 
and  there  is  no  reason  why  this  charismatic  Church 
might  not  have  continued  to  our  own  day.  Extra- 
ordinary gifts  of  the  Spirit,  such  as  prophecy, 
miraculous  power,  the  inspiration  and  revelation  im- 
plied in  the  Mew  Testament  Scriptures,  are  set  aside. 
The  spirituality  of  all  Apostolic  Christians  con- 
sisted in  a  vivid  impression  of  the  character  of  Christ, 
and  a  triumphant  but  inexplicable  conviction  that, 
though  He  had  been  put  to  death,  He  was  still  alive 
in  their  glad  hearts.  In  other  words,  the  Spirit  in 
believers  is  only  their  subjective  apprehension  of 
Christianity  as  life;  the  "principle  of  their  own 
personal  life."  ^    That  is,  the  Holy  Ghost  is  not  a  person 


1  Das  Wesen  der  Christl.  Heligion.  2  eel.  Basel,  1888.  Bd. 
II.  S.  346. 

2  As  long  before  him,  Reuss  had  done  ( Gesch.  der  heil. 
Hchrifttn  N.  Test.  4  ed.  Braunschweig,  1864,  S.  281). 

3  Kaftan,  11.  345.  He  says  further  (S.  259)  that  "  the  Spirit 
means  in  the  Scriptures  first  of  all  the  working  of  God  in  the 
world,  and  is  then  further  the  expression  for  the  immaterial 
Being  of  God  set  in  contrast  to  the  world."  For  Paul,  he  says, 
the  Spirit  was  ' '  above  all  principle  of  a  morally  new  life " 
(lb.).  It  is  not  personal,  save  as  it  acts  in  the  personality  of 
the  believer;  yet  its  work  is  a  continuation  of  the  personal 
revelation  of  Christ  (II.  345).  Its  illumination  is  the  crowning 
act  of  divine  revelation  in  every  Christian.  "All  true  Chris- 
tianity in  the  world  is  the  work  of  the  Holy  Ghost"  (II.  351). 
But  how  an  impersonal  Spirit,  a  mere  principle  of  light,  can  be 
a  higher  revelation  than  Old  Testament  prophets  enjoyed,  or 
than  Jewish  saints  possessed,  who  basked  in  the  light  of 
Jehovah's  countenance,  is  not  made  evident. 


Hx 


^f 


Involved  in  the  Divine  Christ. 


257 


.•2 


Bd. 


heil. 


at  all,  but  is  a  mode  of  divine  activity.  *  The  school  of 
Ritschl  fights  shy  of  clear  statements  on  thissii))ject; 
but  Nitzscli finally  breaks  out  with  the  words:  "There 
remains  for  the  theologian  nothing  but  to  regard  the 
Holy  Spirit  as  a  real,  divine  potency  which  is  not 
created,  but  also  not  perconal."^  There  is  a  personal 
God,  who  reveals  Himself  as  Father  to  all  men. 
There  is  a  man  Jesus,  who  is  personal,  and  stands  in 
an  ethical  relation  to  God.  There  is  also  a  Divine 
Spirit,  which  has,  however,  neither  divine  nor  human 
personality,  and  is,  therefore,  nothing  ])ut  a  potency 
for  good.  Nitzsch  admits  (BO.  S.  42G)  that  Christ 
and  the  New  Testament^  teach  the  Trinity,  and  that 
for  three  hundred  years  in  the  Church  the  doctrine 
was  never  doubted  (DO.  S.  427);  but  he  thinks  the 
Ritschl    theory   of  religious   and   theological   values 

1  So  Professor  Peabody,  an  American  Unitarian  (Lectures 
on  Christian  Doctrine,  p.  130),  declares  the  Holy  Spirit  is  "  but 
a  name  ....  for  divine  influences  and  operations  and  es- 
pecially for  the  influence  of  God  upon  the  soul  of  man." 

2  Lehrbuch  der  evangel.  Dogmatik.  Frt^'burg,  1892,  S.  441; 
BO  Ritschl  V.  u.  R.y  III.  493. 

3  Matt,  xxviii.  19,  and  II  Cor.  xiii.  13  are  referred  to.  The 
personality  of  the  Spirit  is  clearly  set  forth  in  the  conception  of 
Jesus, where  parental  activity  is  ascribed  to  the  Holy  Ghost  (Matt, 
i.  18-20;  Luke  i.  35).  He  is  teacher  (Luke  xii.  12),  can  be 
blasphemed  against  (Mk.  iii.  29),  lied  to  (Acts  v.  3),  and  both 
forbade  (Acts  xvi.  o)and  commanded  the  Apostles  (Acts  xiii.  2). 
Throughout  the  New  Testament,  the  Spirit  is  part  of  a  Trinity 
as  taught  by  Peter  (I  Peter  iv.  14),  Paul  (II  Cor.  xiii.  13), 
John  (xvi.  3,  7,  14,  15),  Jude  (v.  20-21),  and  Hebrews  (vi. 
4-6;  X.  29).  ZOckler,  therefore,  well  concludes  (Z<<m^l/)Oi»to^t- 
hum-Streit.  Munich.  1893,  S.  17)  that  "the  triad  form  of  the 
Christian  conception  of  God  does  not  rest  upon   any  post-New 


258 


The  Ilolij  Ghost  and  Trinity 


solves  such  difficulties.  If  the  Bible  teaches  that  the 
Holy  Gliost  is  a  person,  that  is  only  a  devotional  form 
of  representation.  The  Spirit  may  have  the  religious 
value  of  a  Divine  Person;  but  in  sober  truth  it  is  only 
a  potency.  ^  Nitzsch  lands  theologically,  where  Har- 
nack  does  historically,  in  an  elastic  type  of  Monarch- 
ianism.  He  says  the  Trinity  is  "  three  special  modes 
of  subsistence  of  the  one  personal  God"  (^Dogmatih^ 
S.  444).     There  is  no  immanent  Trinity. 

Schultz  calls  the  Holy  Spirit  the  "  motives  and 
powers  in  God";  the  Spirit  in  the  Church  is  the  mani- 
festation of  these  "divine  motives  and  powers."'^ 
Personal,  preexistent,  Divine  Christ,  and  personal, 
pre*"xistent,  Divine  Spirit  are  both  rejected;  the  one 
on  the  ground  of  Kantianism  and  Greek  philosophy, 
th(^.  other  because  the  personal  presence  of  God  in 
man's  soul  might  mean  mysticism,  and  because  the 
place  given  Jesus  as  entrance  into  a  moral  kingdom 
leaves  no  room  for  the  persona)  Spirit. 


■4\' 


'1 


Testament,  Hellenic  addition  "  to  the  faith  of  the  Church.  In 
reply  to  all  this,  Harnack  says:  "  What  Paul  or  John  thought 
does  not  concern  the  question,"  but  what  the  earliest  Creed  said. 
Yes,  but  their  testimony  is  important  (l)as  an  historic  approach 
to  the  Creed,  and  (2)  as  an  aid  in  disputed  interpretation  of  it. 

^  Yet  Dreyer,  in  liis  Uinlogmat.  Vhristenthum,  2  ed.  Braun- 
schweig, 1888,  S.  78.  says,  "  the  religious  interest  can  by  no 
means  identify  Christ  a\  it i  the  Creator  of  the  universe,  or  with 
the  Spirit  which  is  operative  in  the  Church."  They  are  dis- 
tinct and  personal  to  id\.\h  and  experience;  though  logically  and 
to  reason  "three  can  never  be  at  the  same  time  one."  As  if 
the  Trinity  were  held  by  any  man  to  be  three  in  the  same 
respect  in  which  it  is  one!  "But,"  he  adds,  "  the  loving  heart 
understands  these  things." 

^  Die  Gotthdt  C/trisfi,  S.  (wv.f. 


rinit>j 

at  the 
[  form 
igious 
s  only 
:  Har- 
narcli- 
modes 


Involved  in  the  Divine  Chri.^t. 


259 


es 


and 


mam- 
vers."  2 
rsonal, 
be  one 
)sopliy, 
God  in 
ise  the 
ngdom 


cli.     In 
thought 
etl  said. 
)proach 
of  it. 
Braun- 
\n  by  no 
or  with 
are  tlis- 
ally  and 
As  if 
he  same 
ng  heart 


11 


To  men  holding  such  opinions,  the  history  of 
Pneumatology,  as  well  as  that  of  Christology,  must 
seem  one  long  sequence  of  errors.  The  school  of 
Ritschl  confesses  that  such  is  the  case;  the  result  ])e- 
ing  that  men  like  Nitzsch,  Harnack  and  Schultz  are 
everywhere  inclined  to  exaggerate  differences  of  view 
in  the  Church,  and  place  in  an  unfavorable  light  all 
that  does  not  agree  with  their  theory  of  what  the  gospel 
should  have  been.  ^  The  Monistic  school  ai/proachcs 
history  from  the  same  point  of  view;  Li[)sius  says 
the  alternative  is  Modalism  or  Tritheism,  according  as 
personality  is  ascribed  to  God,  or  to  Father,  Son  and 
Holy  Spirit.  ^  In  other  words,  all  these  so-called 
liberal  theologians  occupy  professedly  or  essentially 
Unitarian  ground ;  and  are  forced  more  and  more  to 
confess  that  "  a  deep  chasm"  separates  them  from  the 
historic  faith  of  the  Church.^ 

I  notice  this  radical  difference  of  view  at  the  outset 
of  this  lecture;  for  I  \vish  to  lay  some  stress  upon  the 
deposit  of  doctrine  respecting  the  Holy  Spirit,  wl'ich 
passed  over  from  the  x\j)ostolic  to  the  post-Apostolic 
Church;  and  it  seems  to  be  theological  prejudice 
which  leads  Harnack  and  others  to  ecive  it  so  little 
weight.  '^    In  the  cas'^'  of  the  Person  of  Christ  and  the 

1  Cf.  Harnack,  I.  455;  11.  213,   275. 

2  Lehrhtch  der  evangel.  Dogmatik.  2  Ed.  Braunschweig, 
1879,   S.  272. 

3  Cf.  Mchlhorn,  quoted  in  Theol.  Jahresbericht,  1805,  S, 
455. 

'"  Loofs  says  (Z>.  E.  Bl.  XT.  S.  182)  that  the  fundamental  idea 
of  Christian  doctrine,  accord. .ig  to  the  Ritschlian  theory,  wliiili 
Harnack  follows,  is  that  it  si)rings  from  a  union  of  Cliristianity 
Avilh   the  philosophical  theories  of  the  universe   held   by  the 


I 


K( 


260 


The  Hohj  Gh<M  and  Trinitu 


apprehension  of  His  work  of  Redemption,  we  saw 
that  history  of  doctrine  could  not  begin  just  where 
New  Testament  theology  ends;  because  the  Gentile 
churches  may  not  have  fully  apprehended  Apostolic 
preacliing  on  these  subjects,  and  philosophic  thought 
early  began  to  color  Christology.  But  with  reference 
to  the  Spirit  the  situation  is  not  the  same.  As  is  well 
known,  there  was  no  controversy  in  the  Church  over 
the  office  and  work  of  the  Holy  Ghost  until  Arianism, 
by  leading  to  the  consubstantiality  of  the  Son, 
brought  as  a  necessary  sequence  the  statement  of  tlie 
Deity  of  the  Spirit.  ^  During  the  three  centuries  be- 
fore this  controv^ersy,  however,  the  Holy  Spirit  was 
known  and  recognized  in  every  part  of  the  Church. 
There  was  no  discussion  which  could  either  produce 
such  a  conception  or  materially  modify  it.  The  very 
fact  that  it  came  into  Christian  circles  with  the  first 
converts,  and  floated  on  unquestioned,  making  no  his- 
tory, is  most  significant.  This  doctrine  of  the  Spirit, 
which  was  learned  by  Polycarp  and  Ignatius  from  the 

Greeks  and  Romans,  and  cannot  be  regarded  as  a  development 
of  what  existed  already  in  germ  ■\vilhin  }»rimitive  Christianity. 
He  points  out  that  all  the  material  in  Ilarnack's  history  is 
arrajiged  to  prove  this  })Osition.  What  does  not  contribute  to 
this— for  exanq)le  Pauline  thought  in  the  Church,  which  he 
holds  had  only  sporadic  influence  before  Augustine — is  thrown 
aside.  "  Tlie  selection  of  material  is  conditioned  solely  by  the 
leading  thought  of  the  book."  Loofs  is  a  pupil  of  Ilarnack, 
and  a  Ritschlian  himself;  hence  his  criticism  is  the  more  im- 
portant. 

1  Montanisrii  is  not  an  exception  to  this  remark,  for  that 
prophetic  movement  did  not  involve  the  personality  and  M'ork  of 
the  Spirit,  but  rather  the  continuance  of  His  extraordinary  man- 
ifestations. 


It  •: 


■PT"!  'I 


Involved  in  the  Divine  C/irist. 


261 


imont 
lanity. 
ory  is 
lUte  to 
ich  be 

U'OWtl 

)y  the 
•iiack, 
•e  iiu- 


Apostles,  and  given  directly  to  Justin  and  Irenaeus, 
who  proceeded  to  teach  it  in  vital  relation  to  the  New 
Testament  Scriptures,  was  hy  no  means  exhaustive; 
but  it  did  receive  and  transmit  belief  in  the  personality 
and  divinity  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

Various  considerations  of  a  general  character  make 
this  evident.  Judaism,  out  of  which  the  tirst  Chris- 
tians came,  taught  that  the  Spirit  was  personal,  ol>- 
jectively  'existent,  and,  though  created,  the  Mediator  of 
Jehovah  in  creation,  in  revealing  the  Scriptures  —  as 
both  Rubjectivv)  and  objective  voice  of  God  to  prophets 
and  holy  men — the  giver  of  life  and  the  administrator 
of  the  commands  of  God.^  Gentile  Christians,  learn- 
ing from  the  Old  Testament,  would  find  the  Apostolic 
docifii'o  of  the  Spirit  much  more  directly  than  tliey 
would  discover  Christology  from  the  same  source.  The 
extraordinary  charismatic  life  of  the  Ap,ostolic  Church, 
also,  certainly  left  a  lasting  impression  of  the  real,  per- 
sonal, divine  Spirit  in  the  hearts  of  believers.      As  if 

^  Jewish  theology  regarded  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  as 
chiefly  threefold:  (1)  creative — He  was  the  divine  j^ower  in  the 
universe  (Gen.  i.  2),  an<l  giver  of  life  to  man;  (2)  as  insidring 
the  prophets  and  holy  men  of  old  to  make  them  organs  of  di- 
vine revelation  or  tit  them  f(M'  places  uf  honor  in  Israel;  and  (;}) 
as  imparting  special  holiness  to  men  who  showed  themselves  pe- 
culiarly faithful  in  keeping  God's  Law  (cf.  Rlisenmenger,  I^/it- 
ikcktes  Judcnthinn,  1700,  I.  206;  Weber,  S.  GO,  78,  123,  148, 
184f.).  These  views  Avere  drawn  from  the  Old  Testament, 
where  they  appear  from  the  very  beginning.  It  is  hardly  acci- 
dental that  the  tirst  verse  of  Genesis  speaks  of  God  the  Father, 
the  second  of  tiie  S[»irit,  and  the  third  of  the  Word,  the  Logos 
of  God.  The  Trinity  lies  upon  the  very  threshold  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  and  is  so  rccos;\iized  by  the  New  Testament  (Johu 
i.  If.). 


..aJJ!!iV«i!»JMMl'WMI'*'lfi'ii'JM¥!i»BIWtWKli«»^ 


m 


is?     f 


l1 

i 

ik,.  4 

ili'm^mt 

m 

lllH 

{.'■■ 

^ 

202 


77<e  /Ti^^y  Ghost  and  Trinity 


still  sharing  that  experience,  Ignatius  said  that  he 
spoke  with  a  loud  voice  to  the  Philadelphians  [Phil. 
vii.),  for    "the^  Spirit     proclaimed     these     words" 

through  him "Be  the  followers  of  Jesus  Christ, 

even  as  He  is  of  the  Father.  "  Finally,  baptism  into 
the  name  of  the  Spirit,  even  though  erroneous  effects 
were  ascribed  to  the  sacrament,  ever  presupposed  that 
the  Holy  Ghost  was  divine  and  mighty  to  save.  If 
the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  were  written  by  Luke,  it 
shows  how  prominent  was  the  thought  of  the  Divine 
Spirit  in  the  Apostolic  Church.  And  if  it  were  written, 
as  some  hold,  early  in  the  second  century  when  impres- 
sions of  primitive  Christianity  had  grown  f ainter,it  is  a 
still  more  striking  testimony  to  the  abounding  faith  in 
the  Holy  Ghost.^  The  writings  of  Paul,  also,  which 
Harnack  sets  aside  as  having  little  influence  upon  post- 
Ajiostolic  thought,  with  their  full  teachings  about  the 

1  The  recent  remarkable  studies  of  Blass  {Acta  Apostolorum. 
Gr)ttingeu,  1895;  cf.  his  essay  in  the  N'eue  KircJd.  Ztft.,  vi.  S. 
VI 41'.),  who  accounts  for  the  two  unique  texts  of  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles  (one  in  Cod.  D,  the  Syriac  and  Latin  versions,  the 
other  in  Cod.  Sin.,  B.  A.  C.  H.  L.  P.)  on  the  simple  hypothe- 
sis that  the  tirst  was  the  text  as  written  by  Luke  in  Rome  about 
A.  D.  65,  when  the  Acts  closes,  and  the  second  was  a  copy 
specially  revised  by  him  for  Theophilus,  not  only  throws  much 
light  upon  this  problem  of  text  criticism,  but  promises  to  give 
a  date  of  departure  from  the  Acts  and  the  Gospel  of  Luke, 
which  may  tix  the  time  of  other  New  Testament  books.  In  any 
case  these  investigations  by  an  expert  philologiau  offer  new 
grounds  for  ascribing  these  writings  to  Luke  and  putting  them 
in  the  full  light  of  Apostolic  life.  Blass  thinks  the  Third  Gos- 
pel was  written  by  Luke  in  Caesarea,  during  Paul's  captivity 
there.  Zlickler  {Die  Apostelf/eschichte  als  Gef/enstanil  lioherer 
und  niedenr  Kritik,  in  Greifsxi'cdder  ^Studien)  and  others  have 
adopted  and  elaborated  the  view  of  Blass. 


Involved  in  the  Divine  Christ. 


263 


copy 
I  much 

give 

|Luke, 

[u  any 

■  new 

them 
U  Gos- 
)tivity 
\dherer 

have 


Spirit  must  Lave  helped  deepen  the  meaning  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  for  men  like  Ignatius  and  Clement.  The 
same  is  true  of  the  Gospel  of  John.  Taking  the 
ground  of  radical  critics  and  putting  it  in  the  time  of 
the  Apostolic  Fathers,*  it  shows  that  in  the  second 
century  tlie  loftiest  conception  oi  the  Spirit  was  cher- 
ished in  the  Church. 

We  cannot,  of  course,  here  enter  into  the  various 
teachings  of  the  New  Testament  upon  this  subject; 
but  may  notice  that  within  the  circle  of  Apostolic 
doctrine  itself  the  movement  was  toward  the  Nicene 
view  of  the  Spirit.  Perhaps  three  steps  may  be  dis- 
tinguished in  this  transition:  (a)  the  earlier  view  in 
the  Apostolic  Church  followed  largely  that  of  the 
synagogue  and  regarded  the  Holy  Ghost  as  working 
especially  in  extr aor dinar \j  manifestations^  as  at  Pen- 
tecost, (b)  Paul  went  beyond  this  position  and 
taught  that  the  whole  life  of  the  Christian  was  guided 
and  governed  by  the  Spirit.  -  He  also  sees  life  in  the 
Spirit  to  be  the  same  as  life  in  Christ  (Rom.  vi.  5; 
H  Cor.v.  17);  for  the  Spirit  proceeds  from  Christ,^  and 
mediates  life  in  Clirist.  (c)  The  third  step  may  l)e 
traced  in  the  disappearance  of  the  extraordinary  man- 
ifestations of  the  Holy  Ghost  with  the  Apostolic  age, 
and  the  apprehension  of  the  Spirit  by  the  post-Apos- 
tolic Church  as  blessing  the  whole  life  of  the  believer 
in  connection  with  the  ordinari/  means  of  grace.  This 

1  Cf.  Iloltzmann,  Einkituug  in  das  N.  Test.  Freiburg,  1885, 
S.  423f.  and  Schiirer,  Ueber  doi  geyenwdrt.  Stand  der  Johtin, 
Frage.  1889. 

2  Cf.  Gunkel,  Die  Wirkiingcn  dcs  heil.  Geiates.  Gottin- 
gen,  1888,  S.  82. 

3  1  Cor.  ii.  10;  II  Cor.  iii.  17;  Gal.  iv.  0. 


viifi 


m 


w 


III  ■ 


mr: 


i: 


2G4 


The  I.Iolij  Ghost  and  Trinity 


third  step  was  not  away  from  the  chnrisni.itic  Church, 
as  many  affirm,  but  was  exactly  in  tlie  line  of  Paul's 
teachings.  He  clearly  disl-inguished  between  xtra- 
ordinaiy  gifts  of  the  S[)irit,  sucli  as  visions  and  s],  cak- 
ing AV'itli  tongues,  gifts  bestowed  upon  individual 
Christians  for  the  edification  of  the  Church,  and  the 
adoption  of  sons,  the  love  of  God  shed  abroad  in  the 
hearts  of  all  believers  l)y  the  Holy  Ghost  (Rom.  v.  5). 
This  last,  Paul  reirarded  as  the  hiirhest  work  of  the 
Spirit,  and  that  which,  univca'sal  and  permanent  in 
character,  was  to  lead  the  Church  throui»:h  comintj: 
centuries  into  all  truth.  ^  The  gospel  once  revealed 
and  confirmed  by  signs  and  wonders,  all  of  which 
Paul  claimed  to  have  experienced,  he  opposed  the 
continuance  of  ecstatic  devotion  and  so-called  "en- 
thusiasm," henceforth  considerino;  it  his  cfreat  work  to 
preach  "  not  with  enticing  words  of  man's  wisdom, 
l)ut  in  the  demonstration  of  the  Spirit  and  of  power." 
He  says:  "I  had  rather  speak  five  words  witli  my  un- 
derstanding. ..  .than  ten  thousand  in  an  unknown 
tongue  "  (iCor.  xiv.  19). 

We  are  now  in  a  position  to  appreciate  what  the 
Apostolic  Fathers  say  in  their  incidental  references  to 
the  Holy  Ghost.  There  are  four  or  five  far-reaching 
relations  in  which  they  put  the  Person  and  work  of  the 
Spirit: 

( 1 )  First  of  all  they  follow  the  OKI  Testament  and 
the  Apostolic  Church  in  ascribing  all  Divine  Revela- 
tion in  the  Scriptures  to  the  Spirit  (Clem.  Rom.  c. 
45).  Clement  says  that  the  Divine  Christ  spake 
throu<2:h     the     Uolv    Ghost  iu   the   Old   Testament. 


>  I  Cor.  xiii.  13;  Col.  iii.  13,  14.     Cf.  Niisgen,  1.  c.  II.  272. 


v.l 


^f!r 


^T1 


Involved  in  ihe  Divine  Christ. 


2G5 


11 


Ignatius  says  the  Spirit  tauglit  all  the  prophets  to  look 
for  Christ  {Mag.  ix.,  cf.  Barnabas,  v.). 

(2)  These  Fathers  taught  next  that  the  Spirit  ex- 
isted witli  God  before  the  world  was,  and  took  part  in 
the  work  of  ci'eation  (Hernias,  Sim.  v.  0). 

(3)  They  saw  further  the  whole  scheme  of  man's 
redemption  as  vitally  dependent  ui)on  the  personal 
Spirit  of  God.  Here  they  speak  more  fully,  for  all 
their  teachings  took  slia[)e  from  the  practical  point  of 
view  of  Christ  and  the  new  life  in  Him.  Barnabas 
says  the  material  imiverse  was  created  through  Clu'ist, 
but  the  equally  great  re-creation  of  the  soul  of  man 
took  place  by  the  Holy  Ghost  (c.  (>).  Hernias  dwells 
upon  the  personal  indwelling  of  the  Spirit,  who  may 
be  "grieved,"  "saddened,"  and  "af.licted."'  Only 
within  the  Church  is  the  renewing  ])()wer  of  the  Com- 
forter felt,  for  He  dwells  only  in  those  that  lielieve 
{ih.  V.  1,  3).-  It  is  the  "one  Spirit  of  grace,"  Clem- 
ent says,  that  united  Christian  brethren  (c.  40);  and 
they  were  strong  "in  the  power  of   the  Holy  Ghoi^t  " 


'es  to 
Iching 


it  and 
levela- 
mi.  c. 
I  spake 
Iment. 

I.  272. 


1  M(unl.  X.  2.  lie  "  has  power,"  and  is  not  si)okou  of  as  be- 
ing a  })0\ver,  Maud.  iii.  4;  v.  1. 

2  Apart  from  his  i\\)\)\  rent  confusion  of  Son  and  Spirit, 
Hernias  is  luueli  nearer  the  Pauline  and  .Tohanniue  doctrine  of 
the  Spirit,  also  the  Church  doetrlne  of  his  time,  tlian  hr  is  to 
any  Ebionite  or  Gnostic  or  Monarchiau  tendencies  (Zik-kler,  S. 
42).  Neither  does  he  or  any  other  Apostolic  Father  speak  as 
did  the  Simonites,  Oi»hites  and  others,  of  the  Spirit  as  a  fennile 
power;  but  always  as  rui  independent,  active  being,  after  the 
manner  of  a  man  {ib.).  Origen,  speaking  of  the  Spirit  (/>e  Prlii. 
ii.  3),  refers  to  the  IS  hep  herd  oi  Hernias,  but  sees  nothing  in  it 
different  from  the  doctrine  of  an  eternal,  personal,  divine  Spirit, 
distinct  from  both  Father  and  Son. 


,   :     > 


Rl; 


;.-  I 


J  5 


i 


hi 


;'i:;,. 


^l^ 


2CG 


77i6  Jloly  Ghoat  and  Trinity 


(Ignatius,  Sm.yr.  xii.).  Ignatius  compares  church 
work  to  ))uikling  a  temple.  God  is  the  great  builder; 
the  cross  of  Christ  is  the  machine  by  which  the  living 
stones  are  lifted  into  place;  and  the  Spirit  is  the  rope 
which  fasten v-d  the  stones  to  the  machine.  Hermas  not 
only  describes  at  length  the  sanctifying  work  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  {Maud.  v.  1,  2;  x.  2),  Imt  in  his  allegory 
lays  stress  upon  the  prophetic  Spirit.  In  the  true 
prophet  the  personal  Spirit  spoke  of  His  own  motion 
and  not  to  satisfy  curiosity;  in  public,  to  edify  the 
assembly  of  saints,  and  not  in  private;  and  showed  His 
presence  by  the  humble,  holy  lives  of  those  to  whom 
He  was  sent.  Believers  should  "trust  the  Spirit  of 
God"  and  shun  all  earthly  S2:>irits  (//>.  xvi). 

(4)  When  we  come  to  the  relation  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  to  God  the  Father,  these  early  theologians  offer 
little  light.  They  take  for  granted  what  the  Old 
Testament  says  of  God  and  the  Spirit  of  God;  but  are 
not  led  to  inquire  further  into  the  subject.  Ignatius 
describes  the  Holy  Ghost  as  "  from  God,"  and  as 
possessing  divine  perfection  of  knoAvledge  (P7i?7.  vii.). 
Barnabas  says,  in  our  Greek  text,  that  the  "Spirit  was 
poured  fortli  from  the  rich  Lord  of  love,"  but,  in  the 
old  Latin  version,  ^^ video  in  vohis  infusum  Spiritum 
ah  honesto  fonte  Deiy^  This  latter  view  makes  the 
Father  the  source  of  the  Divine  Spirit  acting  in  the 
world,  and  looks  toward  the  doctrine  of  the  Procession 
of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

(5)  Much    more    interesting,   however,  is   it  to 

1  I.  3.  Cf.  Swete.  History  of  the  Doctrine  of  the  Pro- 
cession of  the  Holy  Spirit,  Cambridge,  187G,  p.  13.  For  the 
help  derived  from  this  reverent  and  scholar  y  writer,  I  wish  to 
record  my  gratitude. 


irf^ 


Involved  in  the  Divine  Christ. 


267 


it  to 

Pro- 
)r  the 
Hell  to 


notice  the  way  in  wliich  these  Apostolic  Fathers, 
scattered  in  Asia,  Africa,  and  Europe,  put  the  Divine 
Christ  and  the  Divine  Spirit  in  inseparable  fellowship. 
The  figures  of  speech  which  describe  them  as  the 
Divine  Breath  and  the  Divine  Word  making  that 
Breath  articulate,  are  not  so  close  as  is  the  Divine 
unity  found  between  the  Son  and  Spirit.  The  Gos- 
pels present  two  aspects  of  the  incarnation  of  Christ. 
In  the  Synoptists,  the  Virgin  Mary  is  described  as 
conceiving  ])y  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  so  that 
the  holy  thing  born  of  her  was  called  the  Son  of 
God.^  In  the  Fourth  Gospel,  we  are  told  that  the 
Word  of  God,  the  personal  Divine  Logos,  Ijecame 
flesh  and  dwelt  among  us,  the  only  begotten  of  the 
Father  (i.  IG),  full  of  grace  and  truth.  Now  both 
these  conceptions  appear  in  the  Apostolic  Fathers; 
but  they  are  not  delinitely  related.  Ignatius  says: 
"  Our  God,  Jesus  Christ,  was  according  to  the  dis- 
pensation, conceived  in  the  womb  by  Mary; 

but  by  the  Holy  Ghost"  (^Eplt.  xviii.);  and  else- 
where: God  "manifested  Himself  through  Jesus 
Christ,  His  Son,  who  is  His  Logos"  {Mag.  viii.). 
How  were  the  Holy  Spirit  and  the  Divine  Logos  re- 
spectively active  in  the  Incarnation?  The  Gospel  to 
the  Hebrews,  in  a  solitary  instance,  calls  the  Spirit 
the  Mother  of  Christ.'^  In  speaking  of  His  atoning 
death,  Barnabas  calls  the  body  of  Jesus  "  the  vessel 
of  the  Holy  Ghost"  (vii.),  rather  than  of   the  Logos 

1  Matt.  i.  21,  23;  Luke  i.  35. 

2  The  text  is  given  in  Illlgenfekl,  JV.  Test,  extra  Canonem 
receptu7n,  Lipsiae,  1866.  Fasc.  iv.  p.  16.  (Jesus  said):  "Then 
my  mother,  the  Holy  Spirit,  took  me  by  one  of  my  hairs  and 
carried  me  to  the  great  mountain  Tabor." 


h    !: 


fffT 


lib 


H< 


lli: 


'ill 


•' 


268 


27te  llobj  Ghotst  and  2'rinitij 


as  was  later  the  custom.  Ignatius  and  Hennas  take 
a  still  bolder  step;  the  one  saying,  "the  Spirit  (who) 
is  Jesus  Christ"  (^Mag.  xw.^\  and  the  other,  "The 
Son  is  the  Holy  S[)irii "  {Sha.  v.  G;  ix.).  Out  of 
these  brief  statements  Baur  and  his  school,  fifty  years 
ago,  sought  support  for  their  contention  that  original 
Christianity  was  an  outgrowth  of  E})ionitisni;*  and 
from  the  same  slender  materials  Nitzsch,  Harnack- 
and  WeizsJicker  have  elaborated  what  they  call 
Adoption  and  Pneumatic  Christology  in  Apostolic 
and  post-Apostolic  times.  Their  i)osition  is  that 
Hernias  combined  these  Christologies  and  regarded 
the  Son  of  God  as  the  incarnation  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
giving  us  what  Nitzsch  calls  a  JJhiitas  instead  of  a 
Trinit((s;^  or  that  Jesus  by  the  indwelling  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  was  adopted  into  the  Godhead,  giving  us 
the  Socinianism  of  the  school  of  Ritschl.  Now  ao-ainst 
such  a  view  there  are  very  serious  objections. 
We  have  noticed  some  of  them  in  the  lecture  on  the 
Person  of  Christ;  and,  without  going  into  details, 
may  add  the  following  here:  The  identilication  -of 
the  Spirit  and  Christ  could  not  have  been  absolute, 
for  Hennas  and  Ignatius  in  numerous  other  places  dis- 
tinguished the  preexistent  Spirit  and  the  preincarnate 
Christ.^  The  same  remark  is  true  of  Barnabas  (v.  12) 
and  Clement  (i.  22).  Again,  the  text  of  the  pas- 
sages in  Hermas  is  not  certain,  and  his  explanation  of 

1  Dogmengeschichte,  1865,  I.  S.  504. 

2  1.2    156;  Q,\\(X  Pair.  Apost.  p.  157. 

3  D.  G.  S.  18(3;  cf.  Harnack,  I.2  167 

*  Sim.  ix.  12;  Vis.  ii.  2;  iii.  1;  ,67m.  ix.  24;  Mag.  xiii.;^;A. 
xviii. 


lLii;J, 


Involved  in  the  Divine  Christ. 


•2G9 


;  Ei^h. 


the  Trinity  of  Father,  Son  and  Servant  is  not  ck'ar.* 
Athanasius,  wlio  was  most  jealous  of  the  honor  due 
both  Son  and  Spirit,  saw  nothing  unscri{)tural  in  the 
teachings  of  Hernias.-  To  hohl  that  Hernias  taught 
that  the  Holy  S[»irit  was  the  first  hypostasis  to 
be  recognized  in  the  Godhead,  and  that  the  Church 
grasped  the  idea  of  a  preexistent,  personal  Spirit  be- 
fore she  did  that  of  a  preexistent  Christ,  is  to  run 
counter  to  all  the  thought  of  the  £.ge,  which  made 
the  divinity  of  the  H(dy  Ghost  follow  hat  of  the 
Sou  (cf.  Dorner,  I.  888). 

^  He  olsewhcrc  speaks  of  holy  men  inspired  by  "a  spirit  of 
deity."  The  Holy  Spirit  "  spake  ...  in  the  form  of  the 
Church  "to  Hernias  (»S//yi.  ix.  1).  He  continues,  "for  that 
Spirit  is  the  Sou  of  God."  This  same  Spirit  spake  to  Hennas 
also  throuLili  an  angel.  The  general  identitication  of  the  Spirit 
with  the  Church,  an  angel,  and  the  Son  of  God,  shows  that 
Hernias  spoke  in  general  terms.  It  is  not  safe  to  press  a  pro- 
fessed allegory  too  far  to  extract  fine  doctrinal  distinctions 
from  it.     Cf.  Dorner,  Person  of  Christ,  I.  124f. 

Herraas  also  sharply  distinguishes  the  exalted  Son  of  God 
from  the  Spirit  dwelling  in  believers,  saying,  "  your  seed  will 
dwell  with  the  Son  of  God;  for  ye  have  received  of  His  Spirit " 
(ix.  24).  The  Spirit  strengthened  Christians  making  them  able 
to  see  the  "glorious  angel,"  who  seems  to  mean  Christ  [Sim. 
viii.  11).  Hermas  says  it  was  the  Spirit  of  God,  speaking  to  him, 
that  is  the  Son  of  God;  the  word  need  not  be  taken  to  mean 
absolute  identity.  Hence  NCisgon  says  of  the  apparent  identi- 
tication by  Ignatius,  the  Spirit  is  "  the  medium  through  which 
the  exalted  Christ  penetrates  and  tills  men  with  His  own  Being" 
(II.  2G0).  This  Son  of  God,  however  related  to  the  Spirit,  was 
for  Hermas  eternal  (so  also  Ilarnack  I.'-  167).  Clement  of  Rome 
clearly  distinguishes  the  preexistent  Christ  from  the  Holy 
Spirit  (I.  22).     Cf.  also  II.  Clem.  ix.  5;  xiv.  4. 

2  De  Decret.  c.  4. 


■,%. 


&. 


IMAGE  EVALUATION 
TEST  TARGET  (MT-S) 


<9 


1.0 


I.I 


1^ 


M  IIIIIM 

«^»  1^    1 2.2 
2.0 


If   1^ 


8 


1.25 

1.4 

JA 

-^ 

6"     -- 

► 

y] 


^. 


o^ 


%^ 


^. 


-(S 


Hiotographic 

Sciences 

Corporation 


s. 


S^ 


\ 


4- 


:\ 


23  WEST  MAIN  »iRE:  < 

WEBSTER,  N.Y.  M580 

(716)  872-4503 


\ 


^1%''^. 
<^.^*\ 


■# 


<i. 


V ...  4i^ 


i/x 


<S 


\i 


■^ 


270 


The  Holy  Ghost  and  Trinity 


I  I:    'i 


"   Vl 


mm 


But  without  debating  this  matter  further  upon  the 
ground  of  the  second  century,  I  add  a  final  considera- 
tion which  really  settles  the  question.  AVhat  Hermas 
and  Ignatius  say  about  the  oneness  of  Son  and  Spirit 
is  nothing  more  or  less  than  what  Peter,  Paul,  and  the 
author  of  the  Acts  also  said.  Paul  wrote  in  so  many 
words:  "  Now  the  Lord  is  the  Spirit  "  (II  Cor.  iii. 
17).  Peter  calls  the  Spirit,  speaking  in  the  prophets, 
"  the  Spirit  of  Christ  "  (I  Pet.  i.  11.).  And  the  Acts 
tells  us  "  the  Spirit  of  Jesus  "  suffered  not  the  disciples 
to  go  to  Bithynia.  ^  Many  other  passages  teach  the 
same  doctrine.  What  Peter  calls  "the  Spirit  of 
Christ,"  Hermas  calls  "  the  Spirit  of  the  divinity  of 
our  Lord"  (Mand.  xi.).  Paul  says:  "  The  Lord  is  the 
Spirit."  Hermas  says  the  same  thing.  Harnack  ad- 
mits that  what  he  calls  "  pneumatic  Christology " 
comes  from  St.  Paul,  the  "  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  the 
Epistle  to  the  Epliesians,  and  the  Johannine  writings" 
(1. 136).  The  only  inquiry  remaining,  then,  is  whether 
the  Christology  of  these  New  Testament  writers  is 
that  of  a  preexistent  Spirit  becoming  for  a  time  incar- 
nate in  Jesus,  or  whether  it  sets  forth  the  eternal  Son 
of  God  incarnate.  These  questions  we  have  already 
considered.  As  to  the  other  point,  the  identification 
of  the  Son  and  Spirit,  we  can  only  pause  to  remark 
that  it  is  a  unity  of  co-operation  and  not  of  personality 
to  which  the  New  Testament  refers.  Christ  is  the 
bearer  and  mediator  of  all  that  the  Spirit  gives.  And 
the  Spirit  is  the  medium  through  which  the  exalted 
Christ   fills  men  with  His  own  being.'^    They  come  to 


•  xiv.  7,  the  right  reading  being  "  Spirit  of  Jesus." 
2  Cf.  Meyer,  Commentary  on  Rom.  viii.  9,  10;  and  NOsgen, 
II.  259. 


I;} 


i3  f 


Involved  in  the  Divine  Christ. 


271 


i  \ 


»? 


-,»> 


nark 
ality 
the 
And 
,lted 
ae  to 


,8gen, 


us  as  heat  and  light  in  the  same  ray  from  the  Sun  of 
Righteousness. 

When  we  pass  to  the  writings  of  the  Apologists 
we  find  everywhere  the  same  presupposition  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  Holy  Spirit;  l>ut  also  the  same 
incidental  reference  to  it  only  as  involved  in  the  de- 
fence of  the  true  God  and  His  Divine  Christ.  In 
opposition  to  the  charges  of  Atheism,  Justin  (I  ^l^;.vi.), 
and  Athenagoras  (Zt'j/^^^.  x.)  set  forth  the  Christian  be- 
lief in  God,  the  Logos,  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  "  the  host 
of  good  angels."  The  angels  are  named  by  Justin  be- 
fore the  Spirit;  but  that  does  not  mean,  as  Nitzsch 
thinks,  that  Justin  considered  the  Holy  Ghost  to  be 
an  angel."  ^  He  speaks  of  angels  to  show  the  heathen 
that  Christians  have  heavenly  beings  far  better  than 
their  gods.  As  the  argument  from  prophecy  was 
given  the  very  first  place  by  the  Apologists,  they 
made  the  "prophetic  Spirit"  more  prominent  than 
did  the  Apostolic  Fathers.  He  is  given  the  "  third 
place  "  after  the  Father  and  Son.  ^  He  spoke  through 
the  prophets  and  foretold  all  the  work  of  Christ.' 
The  Spirit  has  absolute  knowledge,  so  that  not  only 
Old  Testament  prophets  and  New  Testament  writers 

1  2>.  G.  S.  344.  He  thinks  Ilermas  {Sim.  ix.  12)  did  the 
same.  Elsewhere,  however,  (S.  293)  he  thinks  the  Spirit  in 
Justin  {Dial,  cxvi.)  is  different  from  the  Angel.  Cf.  Thom- 
asius,  I.  248. 

2  Justin  I  Ap.  \\n\  Athenagoras,  Legat.  x.  Theophilus, 
1.  c. 

3  Justin,  I  Ap.  xl;  xli-xliv;  Dial.  Ivi.,  Ixi.  According  to 
Semisch  (quoted  in  Smeaton,  Doctrine  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  1882, 
p.  256f.),  Justin  speaks  twenty-seven  times  of  the  "Prophetic 
Spirit,"  thirty-two  times  of  the  ''  Holy  Spirit,"  and  ihroo  times 
of  the  "  Divine  Spirit." 


1: 


'  I* 


V 


272 


llie  Holy  (jrhoat  and  Trhiity 


were  taught  by  Him,  but  all  the  truth  in  Greek  phi- 
losopliy  came  also  from  the  Holy  Ghost.  * 

Having  thus  laid  the  foundation  for  their  defence  in 
:he  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Spirit  as  giver  of  the  Scriptures, 
the  Apologists  advance  to  their  great  theme,  that  of  the 
Logos  Christology.  It  is  in  connection  with  Christ  and 
His  work  that  their  further  references  to  the  Spirit  ai»- 
pear.  They  know  all  about  the  preexistent  Christ  and 
the  eternal  Spirit  that  we  find  in  the  Apostolic  Fathers; 
but,  as  they  enlarged  the  horizon  of  thinking  about 
the  Divine  Logos,  they  raised  more  and  more  the 
question  as  to  His  relation  to  the  Divine  Spirit. 
Their  Apologetic  argument  led  them  especially  to  tlie 
Old  Testament,  and  here  they  found  especially  t\vo 
conceptions — the  Word  of  God  and  the  Wisdom  of 
God — which  they  felt  described  the  Son  of  God  and 
the  Spirit  of  God,  but  which  they  could  not  apply 
uniformly  or  consistently.  Justin  says  the  Holy 
Ghost  foretold  Christ  as  Wisdom  (2>iai.  Ixi.);  while 
Theophilus  seems  to  regard  the  Spirit  as  Wisdom 
(i.  7;  ii.  10).  He  says  God  "begat  the  Word,"  and 
with  him  "emitted  His  own  Wisdom,"  thus  making 
the  Son  and  the  Spirit  active  with  God  at  creation. 
But  elsewhere  he  seems  to  identify  them,  saying  the 
Word  "being  a  Spirit  of  God,  and  Beginning  and 
Wisdom  .  .  .  came  down  into  the  prophets"  (ii.  10). 
The  preexistent  Spirit  and  the  preexistent  Word  which 
He  uttered  could  not  be  clearly  distinguished.  Tatian 
says  "  God  is  a  Spirit,'"^  from  whom  came  the  Logos, 
who  is  "a  spirit  emanating  from  the  Father"  (vii.). 

*  Justin,  I  Ap.  xliv. 

^  Oratio  ad  Graecoa.     Beoensuit  £.  Schwartz,  Leipzig,  1888, 
o.  4. 


Involved  hi  the  Divine  Christ. 


273 


1888, 


But  Tatian  speaks  also  of  the  "Divine  Spirit'' 
(xiii.);  and  Theophilus  clearly  distinguishes  elsewhere 
the  Word  and  Spirit.  He  describes  the  Trinity  hy 
that  name,  rpidi^^  and  says  it  consisted  of  '^  God 
and  His  Word  and  His  Wisdom."  At  creation,  God 
said  to  them:  " Let  us  make  man  "  (ii.  18).  Justin, 
in  describing  Christ's  ])irth  from  the  Virgin  (I  Aj). 
c.  33), calls  the  Holy  Spirit  the  Logos;  but,  as  Von 
Engelhardt  urges  (1.  c.  143),  does  not  thereby  identify 
them;^  he  only  rejects  the  view  that  it  was  the 
"Prophetic  Spirit"  and  not  the  Logos  who  became 
incarnate.  Christ  could  be  called  also  a  Holy  Spirit 
because  He  was  of  spiritual  character.  But  when,  on 
the  other  hand,  the  Logos  is  described  as  the  power 
active  in  the  prophets,  we  see  the  same  territory  given 
to  both  Son  and  Spirit.  Yet  there  is  a  difference: 
Justin  means  that  Christ  was  the  medium  of  all 
Revelation,  while  the  Holy  Ghost  took  the  things  of 
the  Logos  and  showed  them  to  the  prophets.^  Ii  is  im- 
portant to  notice  that  this  tenacious  grasp  upon  the 
personal,  divine  distinction  of  Son  and  Spirit  by  the 
Apologists,  when  their  philosophical  training  and 
their  elaboration  of  the  Logos  doctrine  made  it  more 
and  more  difficult  for  them  to  hold  these  apart  in  their 
thinking,  shows  how  strong  was  the  traditional  belief 
of  the  Church  in  both  the  Divine  Christ  and  the 
Divine  Spirit.     With  all  their  hesitation  in  utterance 

»  Ad.  Autoly.  ii.  15. 

2  Against  Nitzsch,  D.  G.  S.  290. 

8  Semisch  remarks  of  Justin:  <'0f  a  continued  operation 
of  the  Spirit  on  Christians  he  has  nothing  to  say;  he  also  re- 
gards the  heathen  world  as  hermetically  sealed  against  it." 
(Justin  der  Miirtyrcr^  1842). 


274 


The  Holy  Ghost  and  Trinity 


•*.  i 


m 


these  Apologists  agree  in  two  things:  first  that  the 
Holy  Spirit  is  the  third  Person  of  the  Trinity,  and 
second  that  He  came  forth  from  the  Being  of  God. 
Athenagoras  presents  this  latter  doctrine  very  clearly.* 
He  calls  the  Spirit  "the  effluence  "  (^dn6ppoia)iTom.  God, 
flowing  from  Him  and  evermore  returning  to  the  foun- 
tain of  the  God-head  .  .  as  a  ray  from  the  sun" 
{Legat.  x.).'^  He  goes  on,  teaching  the  view  of  cir- 
cumincession,  to  say  the  "  Son  is  in  the  Father  and  the 
Father  in  the  Son,  by  the  unity  and  power  of  the  Spirit." 
Here  the  eternity  of  the  Spirit  with  Father  and  Son  is 

1  He  says:  "We  acknowledge  a  God  and  a  Son,  His 
Logos,  and  a  Holy  Spirit,  united  in  essence"  (xxiv).  And 
Justin  remarks:  *'\Ve  are  called  Atheists;  but  we  are  not 
Atheists  respecting  the  most  true  God,  the  Father  of  righteous- 
ness .  .  .  and  the  Son  who  came  forth  from  Him,  and  the 
Prophetic  Spirit,  whom  we  worship  and  adore."  (I  Ap.  vi.). 
He  says  again  (I.  13),  we  honor  "the  Son  in  the  second  place 
and  the  Prophetic  Spirit  in  the  third  place." 

2  This  term  "  effluence"  came  from  philosophic  thought  as 
far  back  as  Empedocles  (cf.  Zeller,  Philosophie  der  Griechen, 
4th  Ell.  I.  S.  "723),  in  which  it  expressed  the  supposed  outstream- 
ings  from  objects  by  which  the  mind  perceived  external  things. 
The  Book  of  Wisdom  (vii.  25)  calls  wisdom  "  an  exhalation 
of  the  power  of  God,  and  an  effluence  of  the  pure  glory  of  the 
Almighty."  Familiarity  M'ith  Greek  religious  philosophy  led 
Athenagoras,  as  it  led  the  writer  of  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon, 
to  thus  express  what  he  believed  to  be  the  Christian  doctrine  of 
the  Spirit  (cf.  Swete,  p.  2G). 

The  Greek  Fathers  were  especially  fond  of  illustrations  of 
the  Trinity  drawn  from  external  nature,  as  fountain,  stream  and 
river;  sun,  light  and  radiance  (cf.  also  TertuUian,  yldi}.  Prax. 
viii.);  but  Augustine  turned  to  the  nature  of  man  himself,  made 
in  the  likeness  of  God,  and  saw  in  the  trichotomy  of  memory, 
intelligence,  and  will  or  love,  the  best  analogy  to  the  Trinity. 
{De  Trinitate,  ix.  1,  3f.). 


ym 


f 


vi.). 


Ions  of 
im  and 
\Prax. 
made 
Imory, 
pinity. 


Involved  in  the  Divine  Christ. 


275 


involved.  Theophilus  in  like  manner  makes  both  Word 
and  Spirit  proceed  from  God;  l)oth  were  .kvStdfierot 
before  they  became  npotpoptHot.  The  effort  of  Von  Engel- 
hardt  (I.e.  S.  142f.)  to  show  that  Justin  believed  the 
Son  and  Spirit  to  be  divine  beings,  like  pagan  gods, 
who  were  to  be  adored  and  worshiped,  but  not  regarded 
as  of  the  dignity  of  God  the  Creator,  fails  because  it 
builds  upon  the  mere  Apologetic  coloring  which  Justin 
gives  his  descriptions  of  Father,  Son  and  Spirit  for 
pagan  readers,  and  because  it  does  not  recognize  the 
horror  of  polytheism  which  animated  Christians,  espe- 
cially men  like  Justin,  familiar  with  Judaism. 

It  is  true,  however,  as  we  have  seen  already,  that 
these  Apologists  could  not  grasp  the  real  significance 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  Christian  experience.  Justin 
ascribes  regeneration  and  conversion  to  the  Logos  and 
not  to  the  Spirit  (I -^Ij*^.  xxxii).  Theophilus  traces 
only  man's  natural  life  to  the  Holy  Ghost  (ii.  13.). 
Tatian  sees  in  the  Spirit  the  way  to  holiness,  to  prophe- 
cy, and  union  with  God;  but  regards  it  as  something 
which  the  Christian  should  seek  after,  rather  than  as 
the  source  of  his  life  (c.  15.). 

Of  the  controversies  which  agitated  the  Church  in 
the  second  and  third  centuries — Gnosticism,  Mouta- 
nism  and  Monarchianism — each  contributed  to  the  de- 
velopment of  the  doctrine  of  the  Spirit.  Gnosticism, 
with  its  abstract  conception  of  God,  helped  make  prom- 
inent the  thought  that  the  Son  and  Spirit  are  divine 
emanations.^    Montanism  called  the  Church  toremem- 

*  Though  the  Gnostics  by  rejecting  the  Old  Testament  denied 
that  the  Holy  Spirit  of  the  Old  Testament  was  the  same  as  that 
of  ♦'^e  New,  hence  the  special  emphasis  which  the  Church  laid 
upon  the  Holy  Ghost,  "  who  spake  by  the  prophets." 


.' 


I 

■ 


U 


■K. 


m 


«' 


1 3 


'M 


liMi'  V 


276 


The  Holy  Ghost  and  Trinity 


ber  that  the  well-known  Paraclete  was  still  working 
in  believers;  and  that  all  higher  Christian  life  depend- 
ed upon  Him.  The  Monarchians,  in  their  most  de- 
veloped teachings,  declared  the  full  personality  and 
Divinity  of  the  Holy  Ghost.^  The  chief  things  said  of 
the  Spirit  in  the  New  Testament  are  clearly  reflected 
by  the  Gnostics.  They  know  that  He  is  a  power  of 
God^;  this  power  is  frequently  described  as  motherly'; 
the  Spirit  is  called  the  Paraclete,  as  in  the  Fourth 
Gospel;  and  was  felt  to  be  so  one  with  God  that  Basi- 
lides  in  his  speculation  objected  to  calling  the  Spirit 
consubstantial  (cJ/ioou'tfios)  with  Him.  Valentine  made 
the  Father  send  forth  as  the  last  pair  of  aeons,  vitally 

1  Cf .    Harnack,  I.  629.     He  says  that  one  of  the  differences 
between   the   Sabellians  and  the   earlier  Patripassiaus  was  in 
embrucuig  theologically  the  Holy  Spirit.  Sabellianism  here  "  sim- 
ply followed  the  new  theology  which  began  more  thoroughly  to 
take  notice  of  the  Holy  Spirit."     Heresy,  however,  did  not  start 
this  "new  theology";  it  was  the  attempt  of  the  Church  to  explain 
to  herself  and  others  the  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Ghost  as  held  from 
the  beginning.    The  emotionalism  of  the  Montanists,  especially, 
led  the  Church   to  take  a  more  intellectual  view  of  the  Spirit. 
The  Monarchians  helped  kill  out  Montanist  prophecy,  and  would 
also  merge   the  prophetic  spirit  in  God  as  a  Spirit;  but  against 
this  extreme  the  Church  protested  also.     Athanasius,  for  exam- 
ple, took  up  most   decidedly  again  the  position  of  Sabellius  re- 
specting the  Spirit,  but  insisted  on  both  equal  divinity  and  per- 
sonal   existence,     "^ot  Movoovdtov  but  d/tioovdioy  was  his  watch- 
word (cf.  Expos.  Fid.  xxv).    Still  earlier,  as   Swete   points   out 
(p. 47),  Dositheus  took  the  same  attitude  toward  the  Mouarchian 
view  of  the  Spirit.     He  held    ^^ Pater  enim   ingenitus,  Filius 
genituSf    Spiritus  Sanctus  jirocedens  ex  Patre  coaegualis  per 
omnia  Patri  et  Filio^*  {Praedestinatus  I.  41). 

2  Hippolytus,  Philos.  vi.  13. 

3  Origen,  on  John  ii.  6. 


w 


Involved  in  the  Divine  Christ. 


211 


II 

ii 


connected  and  co-equal,  the  Son  and  Spirit  (Irenaeua, 
I.  4,  2).  Here  there  shines  through,  evidently,  the 
mission  of  Christ  and  the  Holy  Ghost  to  save  men, 
though  this  mission  is  confused  with  the  eternal  gener- 
ation and  procession.  * 

Connected  with  the  Gnostics,  partly  by  contrast  and 
partly  ])y  similarity,  were  certain  circles  of  thought 
among  Jewisli  Christians,  whose  views  of  the  Spirit 
were  imperfect.  Those  called  Nazarenes  might  l»e  said 
to  give  a  one-sided  representation  of  the  Holy  Ghost  as 
found  in  the  Synoptists.  In  the  Gospel  of  the  Hebrews, 
Jesus  calls  the  Spirit  His  mother.  ^  At  His  Ijaptisra 
she  descended  upon  Him  in  the  form  of  a  dove,  and 
her  union  with  Him  seems  to  have  terminated  with  His 
earthly  ministry. 

The  other  wrong  tendency  in  Jewish  Christianity, 
that  of  the  Ebionites,  ran  more  in  the  direction  of 
the  Fourth  Gospel,  and  was  perverted  l)y  Gnostic 
notions.  It  represented  the  Holy  Spirit  as  an  aeon, 
sometimes  identified  with  Christ,  and  again  made  a 
"female  power"  distinct  from  Him.  The  Clementine 
Homilies  teach  a  Divine  Dyad  of  Father  and  Spirit 
or  Wisdom  of  God.  The  Recognitions  distinguish 
the  Son  from  the  Spirit,  but  make  the  latter  the 
creature  of  the  former  (iii.  11).  For  this  reason 
Dr.  Swete  sees  in  this  Ebionite  heresy  the  source  of 
the  Arian  error  respecting  the  Divine  Spirit  (p.  42). 
In  opposition  to  these  inadequate  views,  the  Apostolic 
tradition  of  the  Trinity,  a  grasp  of  Ijoth  Synoptist 
and  Johannine  teachings,  and  some  philosophic  train- 
ing, which  helped   toward  more  consistent  thinking, 

1  Cf.  Swete,  Doctrine  of  the  Procession,  p.  35. 

2  ^QQ  Ililgeufeld  above,  and  Oiigen  on  John  ii.   6. 


278 


The  Hohj  Gho^t  and  Trinity 


i| 


■    ! 


11 


kept  the  Apostolic  Fathers  and  the  Apologists,  though 
with  some  hesitation,  true  to  both  the  Divine  Christ 
and  the  Divine  Spirit.  From  the  middle  of  the 
second  century  on,  the  Fourth  Gospel  was  steadily 
molding  Christian  thought.  We  saw  how  true  this 
was  in  the  development  of  the  Logos  Christology.  It 
is  also  true,  though  in  a  less  degree,  respecting  the 
Holy  Spirit.  Montanism  appeared  protesting  against 
worldly  living,  and  preaching  the  mission  of  the 
Paraclete  as  the  first  thing  in  Christianity.  Such 
preaching  presupposed  and  found  faith  in  the  per- 
sonal, divine  Spirit,  and  must  have  deepened  the 
same.  Indeed  Tertullian,  in  a  well-known  passage 
(Adv.  Prax.  ii.),  tells  us  that  it  was  the  fuller  in- 
struction by  the  Paraclete  and  respecting  the  Paraclete 
that  led  him  into  clearer  views  of  the  Trinity  and  of 
all  truth.  And  it  was  just  this  Johannine  teaching 
about  the  Spirit  which  called  forth  the  earlier  forms 
of  Monarchianism.  The  Alogi  attacked  the  Fourth 
Gospel  as  well  because  it  taught  the  Divine  Paraclete, 
as  because  it  set  forth  the  Divine  Logos.  Irenaeus 
says  of  them:  "They  would  frustrate  the  gift  of 
the  Spirit  .  .  .  because  they  do  not  accept  that 
aspr^t  of  Christianity  which  appears  in  John's  Gos- 
pel, where  the  Lord  promises  to  send  the  Paraclete; 
but  set  aside  at  the  same  time  the  Gospel  and  the 
Prophetic  Spirit"  (III.  11,  9).  They  found  no  place 
for  the  Spirit  except  in  the  Virgin  birth  of  Christ. 
They  felt  truly  that  if  Christ  were  God  incarnate,  the 
Divine  Spirit  must  also  be  accepted;  accordingly 
they  rejected  both,  and  the  Gospel  that  supported 
them. 

It  will  not  be  amiss  to  say  that  in  this  conflict 


Involved  in  the  Vivine  Chrint, 


27U 


ourth 

aclete, 

enaeu8 

rift  of 

that 

Gos- 

iclete ; 

d  the 

place 

ihrist. 

e,  the 

orted 

)nflict 


the  spiritually  minded  men  were  those  who  believed 
supremely  in  the  Holy  Ghost  and  in  Christ  as  God. 
The  Montanists  died  everywhere  as  martyrs.  One  of 
the  confessors  in  Lyons,  who  defended  others  before 
the  governor,  was  called  "Advocate  of  the  Chris- 
tians"; and,  it  is  added,  "having  himself  the  Ad- 
vocate, the  Spirit."^  But  the  first  Monarchian,Tlieo- 
dotus,  denied  Christ  in  persecution,  and  then  said  he 
had  not  denied  God,  but  a  man  upon  whom  the  Spirit 
came  down  at  baptism.  The  character  of  otlier 
Monarchians,  such  as  Paul  of  Samosata,  is  familiar. 
These  men  represented  preeminently  intellectualisra 
in  Christianity,  as  the  Montanists  stood  for  enthusiasm 
a  J  ecstatic  devotion.  Yet  the  cold,  white  light  of 
the  intellect  as  well  as  the  ruddy  glow  of  the  heart 
led  finally  toward  the  personal  divine  S])irit.  The 
earlier  Monarchians  tried  to  identify  the  Father  and 
Son;  they  were  nicknamed  " Patripassians."  But 
the  full  development  of  this  school,  called  Sabellian- 
ism,  saw  that  even  the  subordination  of  the  Spirit 
held  by  Church  divines  must  be  surrendered,  and  the 
Persons  of  the  Trinity  regarded  as  equal  in  power, 
wisdom  and  glory.  Such  a  position  made  the  con- 
ception of  the  Spirit  as  a  creature  of  the  Son  unten- 
able.^   The   fatal  lack   in  this  view  was,   however, 

^  Eusebius,  //.  E,  \.  1.  The  confessors  in  Lyons  were 
in  sympathy  with  the  Montanists  in  their  exaltation  of  the  Holy 
Spirit. 

2  Even  the  Clementine  Homilies,  so  Jewish-Christian  in 
tendency,  speak  of  the  rptdnaxapia  iitovouaeia  as  essential  to 
baptism  (iii.  72;  ix.  19,  23).  But  these  Ebionitio  writings 
anticipated  Arianism  in  their  estimate  of  the  Son  and  the  Spirit 
(of.  Swete,  p.  41).  It  is  said:  "The  Holy  Spirit  has  what  He  is 


|5! 


ii 


Mi' 


,  ::i 


I) 


t:U'       111 
ill 


1} 


i 


280  27ie  Jlohj  Ghont  and  Trinity 

that  it  made  the  (iodhead  unipersonal,  novoovaioy, 
witli  no  j)lea  for  tlie  «««>u(»ia  of  Father,  Son  and 
Spirit. 

Here,  tlieu,  were  the  converging  currents  over  which 
Irenaeus,  Tertullian  and  Origen  sought  to  steer  the 
faith  of  the  Church  in  the  Holy  Ghost.  Gnosticism, 
with  its  great  (xod,  its  Demiurge,  and  all  its  little  gods 
called  aeons,  led  the  jVIonarchians  to  fight  for  the 
unity  of  God,  for  Unitarianism;  as  the  fanatical,  un- 
historical  orthodoxy  of  Montanism  impelled  them  to 
demand  a  place  for  reason  in  religion.  The  anti- 
Gnostic  Fathers  recognized  some  truth  in  the  views 
of  all  these  adversaries;  they  accepted  the  full,  co- 
equal divinity  of  the  Spirit  from  the  Monarchians, 
and  the  largeness  of  His  work  from  the  Montanists. 
Tertullian  says  we  mus'„  not  hesitate  to  use  theologi- 
cal terms  or  thoughts  introduced  by  Gnostics  or 
others,  if  they  help  us  the  better  to  understand  ilw 
truth  of  Christianity  (Adr.  J*r<(.i'.  viii.).  Irenaeus  in 
a  like  spirit  set  himself  to  write  the  earliest  defence  of 
orthodoxy  against  heresy.  Athenagoras  had  spoken 
of  the  first  four  creative  days  as  standing  for  the 
Father,  the  Son,  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  Mankind,  for 
whose  redemption  the  Trinity  was  revealed.  Irenaeus 
pursues  the  same  order  of  thought,' and  from  the  point 

from  the  only  begotten  ....  even  as  the  only  begotten  is 
.  .  .  the  image  of  the  innnutable,  unbegotten  Virtue."  Further 
'<  the  Spirit  can  not  be  called  Son  nor  tirst-begotten;  for  it  was 
matle  by  creation,  but  is  reckoned  in  subordination  with  the 
Father  and  the  Son"  (liecof/nitiona,  iii.  11). 

1  Cf.  IV.  C,  1;  IV.  20,  C;  IV.  38,  3.  So  does  Clem.  Alex. 
{Faed.  ii.  2),  who  says  Father,  Word  and  Spirit  are  "  one  and 
the  same  everywhere";  and  one  with  them  the  Holy  Church. 


point 

[tten  is 

Further 

it  was 

ith  the 

Alex. 
tne  and 
irch. 


1  lie  sees  salvntion  pained  (1)  through  C'lirisi  giving'  "Kis 
80»il  for  our  boiiif,  IIIh  th;sh  for  our  tltsh."  His  (leji,;i  '*Het8 
free  II'  8hive8"aiul  makes  them  Iii»  hi'irs.  Then  (2 »  must 
follow  the  "pouring  out  of  the  Spirit''  (V.  0.  4),  who  (a)  en- 
lightens and  (b)  Hanctities  the  soul,  inaking  (."hrist  to  ho  dwell 
in  us  that  now,  though  we  are  of  tlesh  and  blood,  wo  ean  in- 
herit the  Kingdom  of  God.  The  Sjiirit  blends  with  the  '♦oul, 
which  He  breathed  into  man  at  creation,  and  restores  the  like- 
ness of  God,  which  Avas  lost  by  sin.  Man  retained  the 
"image"  of  God  as  a  trace  of  the  Divine  Logos  left  in  him; 
but  he  lost  the  "likeness"  (V.  G,  1).  This  latter  the  Spirit 
restores,  adding  the  slrctng  meat  which  the  soid  needs,  and  im- 
parting spirituality  to  the  soul  and  incorruptibility  to  the  body; 
so  that  we  look  forward  through  the  Spirit  to  both  the  im- 
mortality of  the  soul  and  the  resurrection  of  the  body  (V.  7,  1). 
Irenaeus  alone  among  the  early  Kathers  fornjed  a  clcstr  con- 
ception of  the  work  of  the  Sjiirit  in  the  j)lan  of  salvation  (IV. 
20,  1;  cf.  Schmid.  />.  G.  S.  U<i). 

2  Kunzc  (S.  05)  sums  up  Irenaeus'  view  of  the  Trinity 
thus:  "The  one  and  the  same  God  has  manifested  Himself  in 
threefold  personality.  Each  of  these  Persons  Is  God  and  not  to 
be  compared  with  anything  created.  But  within  this  Trinity 
there  is  a  certain  subordination,  yet  only  so  far  that  the  Deity 
of  each  Person  remains  untouched." 


W 


Invidved  in  the  JJivine  Chriet. 


281 


of  view  of  Imimui  salvation  protests  against  the  low 
view  of  the  Divine  Christ  and  the  Holy  Spirit  held 
l>y  Gnostics.*  lie  claims  for  the  Spirit  all  that  is 
taiitrht  respecting  Ilim  in  the  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ments. He  is  carefully  distinguished  from  the  Logos 
in  creation,  Providence,  the  Old  Testament,  the  In- 
carnation, and  at  the  baptism  of  Jesus.-  The  (inostic 
theory  of  emanations  regarded  (iod  as  materiul  or 
capable  of  division  (II.  13,5);  and  the  pn  i ■  *>sion 
of  aeons,  finally  of  the  Son  and  Spirit,  as  a  nece-i.vity, 
as  the  result  of  a  defect  in   creation.     But  'lenreus 


'I' 


w 


it 


•ifi 

|;l 

,  V'  ■ 

t'\ 

i 


1^    r  f 


ill 


282 


The  Holy  Ghost  and  Trinity 


says  that  is  all  wrong.  The  Son  and  Spirit  belong  to 
the  Being  of  God.  They  are  essential  and  not  acci- 
dental, eternal  (V.  11,  2)  not  temporal,  a  great  reality 
and  not  what  Ritschl  called  God,  a  "  Hilfsvorstellung," 
in  man's  religious  experience.  The  Spirit  is  equally 
divine  w^ith  Father  and  Son  (III.  G,  4),  is  to  be 
prayed  to,  especially  at  the  Lord's  Supper,  that  He 
may  show  us  the  sacrifice  of  Christ,  and  proceeds  from 
the  Son  as  the  Son  from  the  Father  (V.  18,  2),  for 
each  Person  of  the  Godhead  "  contains  all "  of  God 
(III.  11,  8;  12,  13;  V.  18,  2).  Irenaeus  knows  of  the 
three  great  fields  in  which  the  Apologists  saw  the 
Spirit  active,  namely,  (1)  the  history  of  revelation,* 
(2)  creation,^  and  (3)  redemption,  but  dwells  especi- 
ally upon  the  last.  In  creation  he  sees  the  Son  and 
Spirit  active  as  the  hands  of  God  (IV.  Pref. ;  V.  28, 
4);  but  they  were  ever  personal  with  God,  hence  He 
said  to  them:  "Let  us  make  man."  The  Spirit  gave 
man  "  the  image  and  inscription  of  the  Father  and 
the  Son  (III.  17,  3).  On  the  work  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  in  personal  salvation,  however,  Irenaeus  is 
not  clear.  He  confounds  regeneration  with  baptism. 
He  knows  that  the  Spirit  enlightens  believers  (IV. 
31,  1),  sanctifies  them  and  makes  them  heirs  of  im- 
mortality as  the  Spirit  of  a  new  life  (V.  18,  2);  yet  it 
is  only  a  helper  of  man,  the  strong  meat  added  to  the 
milk  of  the  Incarnation  (V.  7,  1).^  He  clearly  grasps 
the  Incarnation  of  the  Logos  by  the  Holy  Ghost  of 


X.; 


Justin,  I    Ap.    vi;    xxxii;    xliv; 


*  Cf.    Athenagoras, 
liii;  IrenaeuB,  I.  10,  1. 

2  Justin,  I  Ap.  lix;  Dial,  vi;  Athenagoras,  vi. 

"So  Clem.  Alex.,  referring  to  I   Cor.  iii.  1.;  cf.  Paed.  i.  6. 


Involved  in  the  Divine  Christ. 


283 


n 


[grasps 
lost  of 

i;    xlivj 


gf?.  i.  6. 


the  Virgin  Mary,  and  teaches  that  Christ  is  the 
Mediator  of  the  Spirit  for  all  men  (III.  11,  8;  17, 1); 
but  is  not  clear  as  to  how  far  reason  in  man  is  the 
Spirit,  and  how  it  is  related  to  the  Spirit  which 
works  only  in  the  Church. 

In  two  lofty  passages  Irenaeus  rises  to  "sublime 
speculation"  (so  Harnack  I.  455)  upon  God's  reve- 
lation and  man's  redemption  (IV.  20,  5  and  V.  36,  2). 
In  the  first,  the  Old  Testament  is  presented  as  the 
period  in  which  the  Spirit  revealed  God  prophetically, 
and  the  New  Testament  as  the  place  where  the  Son 
revealed  God  adoptively;  while  the  future  kingdom 
of  heaven  will  show  God  paternally.  Corresponding 
to  this  revelation  of  Spirit,  Son  and  Father  is  the 
work  of  redemption.  Irenaeus  says,  the  Spirit  "pre- 
pares man  in  the  Son  of  God;  the  Sou  leads  him  to 
the  Father;  while  the  Father  grants  immortality." 
This  "ladder  of  ascent  to  God"  (III.  17,  3),  we  are 
told,  was  taught  by  "  presbyters  who  were  disciples  of 
the  Apostles."  ^ 

To  these  teachings  of  Irenaeus,  Tertullian  gave 
sharpness  and  precision.  He  was  a  Roman  lawyer 
and  sought  for  exact  statements.  Hence  he  introduced 
the  terms  Suhsitantia  for  God,  and  Per^onae  for 
Father,  Son  and  Spirit.  No  better  man  appears  in 
the  Church  of  the  second  century  from  whom  to  in- 
quire on  these  subjects.  He  was  educated  and  widely 
read.  He  knew  the  life  of  Africa;  was  at  home  in 
the  Roman  Church ;  had  the  writings  of  Greek  Chris- 
tians in  mind;  and  knew  Asiatic  thought  through  the 
Montanists.     He  sought  every^vhere  for  the  doctrines 

1  See  V.  36,  2,  where  I   Cor.  xv.  23f.  is  quoted. 


■ 
% 


rilll 


%m'\ 


I;:- 


-V  " 


It 


284 


The  Holy  Ghoist  and  Trinity 


which  had  been  handed  down  in  the  Church ;  he  tested 
them  by  the  New  Testament ;  and  he  used  common 
sense  as  well  as  the  Christian  consciousness  in  ex- 
pounding them.  Much  modern  theology  tries  to  tear 
apart  knowledge  and  faith ;  but  TertuUian  most  vigor- 
ously defended  both.  As  Montanist,  he  preached  the 
religion  of  the  Holy  Ghost  in  man's  heart.  As  op- 
ponent of  Gnostics  and  Modalistic  Monarchians,  he 
recognized  the  rights  of  philosophy  and  theology. 
As  thoroughly  informed  Catholic  Cliristian,  he  shows, 
in  the  year  A.  D.  200,  all  the  essential  features  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity  which  w^ere  not  preached  by 
the  Greek  divines  till  two  centuries  later  (cf.  Har- 
nack,  II.  287).  Father,  Son  and  Spirit  are  for  him 
unius  suhstantiae^  that  is,  6iAoov6iot  or  cousubstantial, 
while  they  are  distinct  "  persons."  The  traditional 
view  that  the  Spirit  was  related  to  the  Son,  as  the  Son 
to  the  Father,  ^  was  maintained  by  TertuUian  against 
Monarchians.  The  Divine  Logos  and  the  Divine 
Spirit,  he  felt,  stand  or  fall  together.  ^    He  first  called 

^  John  xvi.  14;  cf.  Adv.  Prax.  xxv. 

2  Harnack  holds  that  *'  two  hypostases  of  the  Godhead,  not 
three,  are  known"  in  the  second  century.  lie  appeals  to  Iren- 
aeus,  who  sometimes  calls  the  Spirit  "gradus  "  or  "  unctio"  or 
"scala,"  and  to  Hippolytus,  who  calls  Father  and  Son  "per- 
sons," but  the  Spirit  "grace."  Such  reasoning  alone  would 
make  the  Spirit  impersonal  in  every  Christian  who  speaks  of 
His  being  "  poured  out  "  or  "shed,"  or  being  "  baptized  in  the 
Spirit. "  But  Irenaeus  elsewhere  clearly  speaks  of  the  Spirit  as 
personal,  as  "revealing"  God  (IV.  6,  7;  V.  9; IV.  20, 1;V.  6,  1), 
and  active  in  many  ways.  Hippolytus  does  the  same.  The 
Spirit  "perceives,"  "makes sensible"  things  tons;  and,  further, 
itis  "  impossible  to  praise  God  rightly  except  in  the  recognition 
of  the  whole  Trinity."     "The   Father  has   subordinated  all 


Hi 


Involved  in  the  Divine  Christ. 


285 


the  Spirit  "  God,"  but  he  only  uttered  what  the 
Church  had  ever  believed  {Ado.  Prax.  ii.).  He 
protested  against  the  theory  of  the  Son  and  Spirit  be- 
ing only  divine  principles.  He  declared  that  to  make 
these  have  but  the  religious  value  of  God,  would  be  to 
make  what  is  said  of  them  and  their  work  in  creation, 
revelation  and  redemption  meaningless.  The  revealed 
Trinity,  he  holds,  is  also  a  Trinit}'  immanent  in  God. 
Within  the  Monarchy  of  God  there  is  an  unfolding, 
an  oiHovonia,  God  from  God,  as  light  from  lig^t,  and 
this  unfolding  preserves  divine  unity  in  the  Divine 
Trinity.  "  Unitatem  in  Trinitateni  di.yyonit "  (ib. 
ii;  XV.).  There  was  a  difference  of  order,  c  egree, 
manifestation,  but  none  of  substance,  power  and 
glory.  ^  He  says:  '•'■  Spirituni  non  aUnnde  puto^ 
qua  in  a  patre    per  filiiDii'''     (iv).      Elsewhere    he 

things  to  the  Son,  except  Himself  and  the  Holy  Spirit"  [Phil. 
viii.  of.  ZOckler  S.  48).  He  says,  furtliLr:  "We  know  the 
Father,  we  believe  in  the  Son,  we  worship  the  Spirit "  {Ado. 
Koet.  12).  The  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Spirit  Mas  not  developed 
in  the  second  century,  but  it  was  jdainly  present  in  the  Church, 
both  East  and  West.  The  theological  statement  of  the  Spirit 
in  the  second  century  did  not  use  the  terni  hypostatic;  but  all 
that  was  meant  later  by  that  term  is  clearly  involved  in  the 
teachings  of  the  Apologists  and  the  Anti-Gnostic  writers. 

1  Hence  Swete  (1.  c.  p.  55)  terms  Tertullian  founder  of 
the  Western  doctrine  of  the  Procession  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
He  developed  the  doctrine  that  both  Son  and  Spirit  are 
personal  emanations  from  the  "one  substance"  of  God,  basing 
his  view  upon  John  xvi.  14,  especially.  He,  and  Origon  after 
him,  speak  of  the  Spirit  after  the  analogy  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
Logos  (Harnack,  H.  li^T);  for  it  was  felt  that  the  attacks  of  Mou- 
archianism  were  equally  valid  or  invalid  agaim  ■,  both.  But 
such  analogy  of  view,  Harnack  admits,  comes  from  the  New 
Testament  itself  (I.  535). 


rii  I 


•li 


I 


"'■! 

-'' : 

1; 

■   C 

»^ 

',    : 

J 

»' 

i     i 

'  (1 

286 


The  Holy  Ghost  and  Trinity 


continues:  "The  Spirit  is  third  from  God  and  the 
Son,  just  as  the  fruit  of  the  tree  is  third  from  the 
root"  (viii.).  Tertullian  then  argues  at  length  from 
the  Scriptures  in  defence  of  Christ,  the  Spirit  and  the 
Trinity  (^ih.  xif.),  *  so  that  there  is  no  ground  for  Ilar- 
nack's  sweejiing  remark  that  "  the  factor  of  the  per- 
sonality of  the  Spirit  is  for  Tertullian  an  acquisition 
arising  entirely  from  pushing  logical  consequences  to 
extremes"  (I.  450). 

Origen  carried  the  doctrine  of  Tertullian  respect- 
ing the  procession  of  Son  and  Spirit  a  step  farther  and 
described  it  as  before  all  things,  or  eternal,  though  he 
fell  short  of  the  Latin  Father's  conception  of  consub- 
stantiality.  He  thought  that  God  was  always  Father, 
the  generation  of  the  Son  was  eternal,  and,  he  added, 
"the  same  thing  must  be  said  of  the  Holy  Spirit." 
Their  relations  had  no  "before  or  after";  they  were 

'  As  the  work  of  Christ  as  the  Word  of  God  was  more  ap- 
preciated, and  He  was  regarded  as  the  revealer  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment also,  the  work  of  the  Spirit  was  considered  as  especially 
that  of  Inspirer  of  the  Prophets  and  other  holy  writers  (so 
Justin,  I  A}),  vi. ;  xxxii. ;  xliv. ;  liii. ;  Athenagoras,  x. ;  Irenaeus 
I.  10,  If.). 

The  question  of  God  as  Spirit,  and  God  the  Holy  Spirit  oper- 
ative in  the  world  and  history,  also  led  to  discussion  in  the  early 
Church.  The  Spirit  was  known  as  upholding  power  in  the  uni- 
verse (Justin,  I  Ap.  lix. ;  iJiiiL  vi. ;  Theophilus,  i),  as  life-giving 
providence  (Athenagoras,  vi.),  and  governor  of  all;  yet  Tatian 
speaks  (iv.)  as  if  this  were  different  from  the  Holy  Ghost  (cf. 
Nitzsch  D.  G.  S.  290).  Irenaeus  (V.  12,  2),  and  other  Fathers 
down  to  Augustine,  also  distinguish  the  Spirit  of  Life  in  the 
world,  the  immanence  of  God,  from  the  Holy  Ghost.  When 
the  Logos  and  the  Spirit  were  spoken  of  in  Nature,  the  former 
was  regarded  as  the  creative  and  the  latter  as  the  preserving 
power. 


li  i... 


Involved  in  the  Divine  Christ. 


287 


necessary  and  eternal.  The  Spirit  proceeds  from  the 
Father  through  the  Son.  But,  again,  in  tracing  the 
revelation  of  the  Spirit  through  the  Son,  Origen  is  not 
sure  whether  the  Spirit  was  "born  or  innate";  though 
he  says  the  Scriptures  never  teach  that  the  Holy  Ghost 
is  a  creature  (De  I^ri?t.  m.  'd).  None  can  be  saved 
"unless  with  the  co-operation  of  the  whole  Trinity" 
{ih.  i.  3,  5).  The  eternal  Spirit  is  ever  becoming/,  as 
breathed  from  God  through  the  Logos  (on  John  ii.  6), 
and  this  glorious  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Ghost  he  de- 
clares to  be  the  distinguishing  prerogative  of  Christian- 
ity (cf.  Bigg,  p.  171).  Origen  is  peculiar  in  making 
the  activity  of  the  Trinity  move  within  concentric  cir- 
cles. The  Father  and  Son  work  in  "  both  saints  and 
sinners,  in  rational  beings  and  dumb  animals,"  as  well 
as  in  the  material  universe;  but  the  Holy  Spirit  works 
only  in  men,  "who  are  already  turning  to  a  better  life 
and  walking  along  the  way  which  leads  to  Jesus 
Christ"  (//a).  He  dwells  only  in  the  saints;^  and  forms 
the  completion  of  God's  revelation  to  man.  The 
Father  creates,  the  Son  gives  the  rational  nature,  but 
the  Spiiit  gives  holiness  of  character,  so  that  Christ, 
the  righteousness  of  God,  can  dwell  in  us.  (i.  8,  7). 

Beyond  Origen,  but  two  important  steps  were 
taken  in  the  East  in  refen  iice  to  the  doctrine  of  the 
Spirit:  u^..  first  was  that  of  Athanasius  and  his  friends, 
who  saw  that  the  6/itoovaia  of  the  Son  involved  that  of 
the  Spirit  also;  the  second  was  that  of  Basil  and  his 
followers,  who  carried  out  theteacliinsfsof  Orii^en  and 
Athanasius  so  as  to  give  us  the  enlarged  form  of  the 
Nicene  Creed.     Lookins:  back  now  for  a  moment  we 


i  r. 


p    ai'f' 


1  ^lere  Origen  reproduces  the  New  Testament  doctrine.     Cf. 
Gunkel,  1.  c.  S.   30. 


\m 


\m 


\in 


m  4 


288 


The  IIol'j  Ghost  and  7rinUt/ 


can  see  how  the  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Gliost,  given  in 
Apostolic  preaching  and  in  the  New  Testament,  grew 
toward  the  statement  in  the  Nicene  theology.  The 
Apostolic  Fathers  believed  the  Spirit  to  be  divine  and 
personal.^  Justin  described  Him  as  in  the  "third 
place  "  after  the  Father  and  Son.  Irenaeus  presented 
the  Spirit  as  active  in  revelation  and  creation,  but 
especially  in  redemption.  Tertullian  does  the  same ; 
but  lays  more  stress  upon  revelation  and  creation.  He 
also  took  the  important  step  of  clearly  saying  that  the 
Spirit  is  of  the  same  substance  with  the  Father  and 
Son.  Origen  taught  that  the  Spirit  is  eternal,  and 
that  all  of  God  is  in  each  Person.  Then  Athanasius 
combined  the  teachings  of  his  predecessors  to  make 
the  Holy  Ghost  personal,  eternal,  prophetic,  redemp- 
tive and  consubstantial  with  the  Father  and  Son. 

The  incidental  reference  to  the  Spirit  in  the  the- 
ology of  the  iirst  three  centuries  is  familiar  to  all  stu- 
dents; and  not  a  few  recent  critics  have  used  this  fact 
to  produce  the  impression  that  a  doctrine  of  the  Spirit 
was  not  formulated,  because  faith  in  a  personal  Holy 
Ghost  did  not  exist.  The  following  considerations 
may  help  to  show  the  groundlessness  of  such  an  infer- 
ence : 

(1)  And  first  of  all  the  Holy  Spirit  is  that  reve- 
lation of  God,  the  most  vital  and  teuder,  which  takes 
place  only  in  holy  men  as  a  matter  of  experience,  and 
which  especially  refuses  to  be  described  in  terms  of 
the  intellect.  God  is  here  subjective  in  such  a  way 
as  man  cannot  fully  describe. 

(2)  The  extraordinary  manifestations  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  in  New  Testament  days  led  the  brethren  to  look 

1  Cf.  Ignatius  above  p.  145,  and  Clem.  Kom.  in  Lecture  VI. 


Involved  in  the  Divine  Christ. 


289 


« 


Holy 
)  look 


iro 


VI. 


at  the  effects  of  His  work  rather  than  at  the  personal 
agency  operative  in  them  (cf.  Giiukel,  S.  48f.). 

(3)  The  work  of  the  Spirit,  too,  was  so  w*ell 
known  that  description  and  definition  seemed  needless. 
It  was  thr  wonderful  outpouring  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  so 
long  described  and  foretold  in  the  Old  Testament. 

(4)  The  further  fact  that  the  indwelling  of  Christ 
in  the  hearts  of  believers  was  so  inseparably  connected 
with  the  Spirit  of  Christ  made  a  doctrine  of  the  latter 
difficult  for  the  early  Church.  Gunkel  thinks  (S.  82) 
it  was  because  the  revelation  of  Christ  and  the  Spirit 
came  to  Paul  as  one  divine  manifestation  that  he  said : 
"  Now  the  Lord  is  the  Spirit." 

(5)  The  doctrine  of  the  Spirit,  as  Origen  observes, 
being  peculiar  to  the  Bible  and  the  great  characteristic 
of  Christianity,  found  nothing  in  heathenism — as 
Christology  did  in  the  Logos — to  provoke  discussion 
and  lead  to  theological  definition. 

(6)  It  is  also  true,  as  Von  EnjT^t'lhardt  remarks 
(S.  145),  that  the  adoration  of  the  Holy  Ghost  aroused 
no  opposition  from  heathen  or  other  critics,  except  a 
few  extreme  Monotheists,  because  it  could  easily  ])e 
regarded  as  a  divine  power  or  manifestation;  hence 
there  was  no  demand  for  explanation  of  the  Spirit. ' 

1  It  is  also  true  within  proper  limitations,  as  Nitzsch  ob- 
serves (D  G.  293),  that  during  the  first  three  centuries,  in  the 
case  of  the  Holy  Spirit  as  in  that  of  the  Logos  (cf.  Theophilua, 
i.  5;  ii.  10),  just  in  the  degree  that  Wis.  i^ersonal  character  was 
brought  forward.  His  coordination  with  the  Fatlier  and  even 
with  the  Son  fell  back.  On  the  other  hand,  His  absolute  Deity 
seemed  then  most  secure  when  His  special  Personality  fell 
back.  Of  course,  the  more  the  Son  and  the  Spirit  were  identified 
personally  with  God,  the  less  question  there  could  be  of  their 
absolute  Divinity;  and  the  more  the  attempt  was  made  to  do 


if 


i 


I'm 


It: 


(if 


i 


I 


&' 


III: 


I 


290 


The  Holy  Ghont  and  I'vinity 


(7)  The  natural  development  of  doctrine  also 
postponed  this  inquiry.  There  were  but  two  great 
controversies  in  the  first  three  centuries:  the  first  was 
Gnosticism,  which  had  to  do  ahove  all  with  God.  Its 
ultimate  (question  was,  uncle  Deus?  It  centered  inter- 
est upon  the  one  God  as  related  to  creation,  the  Old 
Testament,  and  the  work  of  Christ  as  philosophy. 
The  other  controversy  was  that  which  began  in  Mon- 
archianism  and  ended  in  Arianism ;  the  center  and  cir- 
cumference of  which  were  Jesus  Christ.  Not  till  the 
doctrines  of  God  and  the  Divine  Chiist  were  formu- 
lated was  the  Church  led  to  investigate  critically  the 
Holy  Ghost. 

(8)  Finally,  the  solemn  words  of  the  Lord  about 
blasphemy  against  the  Holy  Ghost  as  a  sin  that  would 
never  be  forg'ven  (Matt.  xii.  31),  are  referred  to  at 
once  by  Origen  (Z>e  Prin.  i,  3,  2),  Athanasius,*  CyriP 
of  Jerusalem  and  others  as  a  warning  against  prying 


ifif 


justice  to  the  personal  or  hypostatic  character  of  each,  the  more 
a  subortliuatiou  element  was  liable  to  come  in.  The  early 
Fathers  saw  clearly  this  connection  of  thought;  but  so  convinced 
were  they  of  the  non-Christian  nature  of  Monarchianism,  that 
Origen,  who  knew  all  past  thought  of  the  Church,  opened  hia 
De  PrincipUs  with  the  statement  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Trin- 
ity was  the  foundation  of  Apostolic  Christianity.  lie  says  the 
Apostles  taught  that  the  Holy  Ghost  was  "  associated  in  honor 
and  dignity  with  the  Father  and  the  Son,"  not  only  in  the  New 
Testament  but  also  in  the  Old  (Z>e  Prin.  i.  4,  2).  He  also  re- 
marked that  he  had  heard  of  heretics  who  "dared  to  say  that 
there  are  two  Gods  and  two  Christs  (the  Gnostics),  but  we  have 
never  known  of  the  doctrine  of  two  Holy  Spirits  Vjeing  preached 
by  any  one"  [De  Prin.  ii.  V,  1). 

1  Ep.  ad  Serap.  iv.  8,  and  often. 

2  Cdtech.  Lcct.  xvi.  1. 


Involved  in  the  Divine  Christ. 


291 


more 
early 
inced 
,  that 

ed  his 
Trin- 

ays  the 
honor 
!  New 

ilso  re- 
y  that 
e  have 

eached 


into  the  mystery  of  the  Spirit.  And  yet  the  very  fear 
here  expressed,  a  fear  which  regarded  an  offense 
against  the  Spirit  as  the  most  awful  sin  against  God^ 
shows  how  firmly  belief  in  this  Person  of  the  Trinity 
was  presupposed  in  the  Churches. 

Before  leaving  the  references  to  the  Spirit  in  ante- 
Nicene  belief,  I  think  it  important  to  notice  that  the 
earliest  creed  of  the  Church  declares  that  Christ  "was 
born  of  the  Holy  Ghost  and  the  Virgin  Mary,"  while 
in  its  third  article  it  says  solemnly:  "  And  (I  believe) 
in  the  Holy  Ghost."  This  creed  was  written  in  Greek, 
but  appeared  first  not  later  than  A.  D.  150,  perhaps 
as  early  as  A.  D.  125,  in  the  Church  of  Rome.^  It 
cannot  be  traced  so  early  in  the  East;  but,  resting  as 
it  does  upon  the  Trinitarian  formula  of  baptism,  it 
certainly  contains  nothing  foreign  to  the  faith  of  the 
Church  universal.  Here  we  have  two  important 
truths  about  the  Holy  Spirit:  first,  that  the  miraculous 
birth  of  Jesus  from  the  Virgin  was  due  to  the  per- 
sonal, parental  activity  of  the  Holy  Ghost;  and  second, 
that  the  first  Confession  of  Faith  was  "  in  God  the 
Father  almighty,  and  in  Christ  Jesus,  His  only  begot- 
ten Son  " "  and  in  the  Holy  Ghost."  The  Coun- 
cil of  Nicaja,  after  two  hundred  years  more  of  Church 
life,  only  said:  "We  believe  in  the  Holy  Ghost." 
Thus  there  ran,  before  and  under  and  with  the  doctri- 
nal development  of  the  second  and  third  centuries, 
the  personal  confession  of  every  Christian — "  I  believe 
in  the  Holy  Ghost,"  till  the  venerable  Council  of  Nice, 
speaking  for  a  thousand  churches,  said:  "  We  believe 
in  the  Holy  Ghost."     Now  all  this  looks  very  seriou& 


lijfe! 


J  Cf.  ZOckler,  Zum  ApostoUkum-Streit.  Munich,  1893. 


i 


292 


The  JIolij  0/ioH  and  IrifiUy 


for  those  who  suppose  that  both  a  Divine  Christ  and  a 
Divine  Spirit  are  Greek  corruptions  of  original  Chris- 
tianity; hence  Harnack  sets  himself  with  full  vigor  to 
prove  ^  that  the  miraculous  conception  of  Christ  was 
no  part  of  New  Testament  teachings,  and  that  the 
Holy  Spirit  here  professed  was  not  personal,  but  a 
"  power  and  gift''  of  God  (S.  2<)). 

As  to  tlie  Virgin  birth  of  Jesus,  he  admits  at  once 
upon  the  clear  testimony  of  Justin,  Aristides  and  Ig- 
natius (cf.  Ep/f.  xix;  Trail,  ix;  Smyr.  i),  that  it  was 
"  a  fixed  part  of  Church  tradition  "  by  the  end  of  the 
first  century.  Still  he  thinks  it  "does  not  belong  to 
the  original  proclamation  of  the  Gospel";  and  that 
for  two  reasons — first  the  positive  fact  that  the  gene- 
alogies of  Jesus  lead  to  Joseph  and  not  to  Mary,  and 
second  the  negative  argument  drawn  from  the  silence 
of  Mark  and  the  supposed  silence  of  John  and  Paul.  ^ 
Of  course,  we  cannot  enter  into  this  discussion  of  New 
Testament  teachings  at  length ;  but  the  following  re- 
marks may  suffice  to  show  that  the  miraculous  birth 
of  Jesus  from  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  plainly  confessed  by 
the  Church  of  the  second  century,  was  part  of  the  de- 
posit of  doctrine  received  from  Apostolic  men.  So 
far  as  the  argument  from  the  genealogies  is  concerned, 

*  Das  Apost.    Glauhensbekenntniss.,  2Gth.   Ed.  Berlin.  1893. 
S.  22  f. 

2  Ramsay  makes  it  very  probable  {The  Church  in  the  Roman 
Empire^  New  York,  1893,  c.  xvi.)  that  the  Acts  of  Paul  and 
Thecla  is  essentially  historical,  especially  as  in  the  Syriac  ver- 
sion. In  that  book  (p.  61)  we  find  Paul  presented  as  explain- 
ing "the  birth  and  resurrection  "  of  Christ  as  two  points  of 
great  importance.  He  '*  refreshed  the  souls  of  his  hearers  with 
the  greatness  of  Christ,  and  was  forever  recounting  to  them 
how  He  was  manifested  to  him." 


Involved  in  the  Pi  cine  Christ. 


293 


it  may  })e  sufticient  to  say  tliat  it  is  the  very  two 
Gospels  which  contain  thoni  that  also  tell  of  the 
Virgin  birth.  Matthew  and  Luke,  the  one  represent- 
ing the  Jewish  Church,  the  other  standing  for  a  wider 
community,  saw  no  contradiction  between  the  origin  of 
Jesus  in  the  genealogies  and  I  lis  supernatural  birth  of 
the  Holy  Ghost.*  In  both,  the  personality  and  the 
Divinity  of  the  Spirit  are  recognized;  and  such  narra- 
tives could  never  have  arisen  if  the  idea  of  the  super- 
natural, personal  Spirit  had  not  been  most  familiar  in 
the  Church.^  The  other  argument,  from  silence,  is, 
as  all  men  know,  very  precai'ious.  Ilarnack  urges 
that  the  proclamation  of  the  gospel  began  in  the  New 
Testament  with  the  baptism  of  Christ,  and  that  Paul 
does  not  refer  to  the  birth  of  a  Virgin,  therefore  the 
latter  is  no  j)art  of  Christian  doctrine.  I  might  sug- 
gest in  this  connection  the  argument  of  Pastor 
Ilering,^  who  holds  that  because  Protestant  divines 


1893. 


)laiii- 

Its  of 


wi 


th 
I  them 


*  Luke  claims  to  have  gained  this  information,  as  all  else, 
from  eye-witnesses  of  the  life  of  Christ  (i.  2).  We  might 
imagine  the  elimination  of  such  an  account  from  a  Gosj)cl,  but 
its  insertion  in  the  lifetime  of  those  who  must  have  known  the 
truth  in  the  matter  is  very  improbable.  The  fact  that  very 
early  the  Jews  circulated  ^X^mXevH  {^Toledoth  Jeschu)  ahout  the 
Virgin  birth  shows  how  thoroughly  it  was  accepted. 

Harris  (1.  c.)  makes  the  very  credible  suggestion  that  the  term 
Panthera,  applied  in  early  Jewish  slanders  to  the  supposed  sold- 
ier betrayer  of  Mary,  is  but  a  perversion  of  the  word  TtapOevoi, 
after  the  well-known  habit  of  the  Jews  to  slightly  change  a 
name  to  make  it  a  term  of  opprobrium.  Thus  every  effort  to 
fasten  the  charge  of  unfaithfulness  upon  her,  presupposed  the 
belief  in  the  Virgin  birth. 

2  Cf.  Ziickler,  1.  c.  S.  .30f. 

3  Ztft.f.  Theol.  u.  Kirche.  1895,  II.  1. 


294 


ii 


m- 


Hi 


7'/(6  //o///  Ghont  and  2'rinUy 


from  Luther  down  have  preached  ao  little  about  the 
miraculous  conception,  it  cannot  be  essential  to  the 
gospel.''  The  comparative  silence  of  well-known 
Trinitarians  shows  the  invalidity  of  the  reasoning 
based  upon  the  comparative  silence  of  John  and  Paul. 
These  Apostles  naturally  did  not  speak  first  of  the 
Virgin  birth,  for  they  were  witnesses  of  Christ's  pub- 
lic ministry,  and  tliey  had  not  been  eye-witnesses  of 
His  infancy.  Apologetic  reasons,  also,  led  them  to 
put  in  the  foreground  for  Jewish  hearers  the  gospel 
in  its  relation  to  Monotheism  and  the  resurrection  of 
Jesus,  rather  than  to  press  at  once  the   Divinity  of 

-  lu  connection  with  the  contention  of  these  rationalistic  theo- 
logians that  the  Virgin  birth  of  Jesus  has  no  religious  connection 
withthelncarnation,  it  maybe  well  to  observe  that,  in  one  passage 
at  least,  of  our  Revised  New  Testament  the  opposite  position  is 
taken.  Dr.  David  Brown,  one  of  the  revisers,  says  [Presby- 
terian and  lieformcd  Hevieip,  1896,  p.  232)  of  Luke  i.  3,  5: 
*♦  ♦  The  Holy  Ghost  shall  come  upon  thee,  and  the  power  of  the 
Highest  shall  overshadow  thee:  therefore  also  that  holy  thing 
which  shall  be  born  of  thee  shall  be  called  the  Son  of  God ' :  I 
know  of  nothing  for  which  we  have  to  thank  the  revisers  more 
than  the  change  which  they  have  made  in  the  sense  of  this 
great  verse.  According  to  the  Authorized  Version,  Jesus  of 
Nazareth  became  the  Son  of  God,  if  not  exclusively,  yet  in  a 
new  sense,  '  the  Son  of  God,'  by  the  marvelous  conception  of 
His  mother;  whereas  the  uniform  testimony  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment is  that  when  '  God  sent  forth  His  Son,  made  of  a  wo.nan'  in- 
stead of  thereby  iccomtn^  His  Son  in  a  new  sense,  He  simply  clothed 
Him  with  ourhumannature.  Now,  hear  the  Revised  Version:  'The 
Holy  Ghost  shall  come  upon  thee,  and  the  power  of  the  Most 
High  shall  overshadow  thee:  wherefore,  also,  that  which  is  to 
be  born  shall  be  called  holy,  the  Son  of  God.'  According  to 
this  reading  of  the  verse  it  was  not  His  Sonship,  but  His  holi' 
ness,  from  His  very  birth,  which  was  secured  by  the  miracu- 
lous conception  of  the  blessed  Virgin." 


Involved  in  the  Divine  Chriiit. 


295 


p 

-^ 


od':  I 
more 
this 
8U8  of 
in  a 
ion  of 
Testa- 
an'  in- 
othed 
'The 
Most 
is  to 
ng  to 
1  holi' 
liracu- 


Christ  and  Ilis  miraculous  birth,  which  would  have 
aroused  opposition.  When  once  men  learned  of 
Christ  the  Redeemer,  who  died  and  rose  again ;  when 
once  they  knew  II im  as  the  Fullness  of  the  CJodhead 
bodily,  belief  in  His  supernatural  origin  would  follow 
easily  and  naturally.  Who  can  read  of  the  Incarna- 
tion in  the  Fourth  Gospel  and  not  feel  that  it  was  mir- 
aculous? And  the  Apostolic  Church  knows  of  no 
miraculous  birth  of  Christ  save  that  by  the  Holy 
Ghost.  Similar  considerations  ai>l)ly  to  St.  Paul. 
lie  knows  of  Christ  the  Heavenly  Man,  the  second 
Adam.  He  feels  instinctively,  as  we  all  do,  that  if 
the  beginning  of  humanity  needed  the  direct  creation 
of  the  first  man,  much  more  did  the  creation  of  the 
second  man  call  for  the  full  supernatural  interposi- 
tion of  the  Holy  Ghost.  But  Paul  was  not  writing  a 
history  ol  Christ;  his  doctrinal  discussions  presup- 
posed the  Trinity  and  the  Divine  Spirit  everywhere, 
and  his  supposed  silence  upon  the  Virgin  birth  is  no 
evidence  against  the  plain  teachings  of  Matthew  and 
Luke. 

The  other  reference  to  the  Spirit  in  the  earliest 
creed  is  still  more  important — "I  believe  in  (the) 
Holy  Ghost."  The  Holy  Spirit,  who  brought  Christ 
into  the  world  is  the  Holy  Spirit  who  brings  Christ 
into  the  heart  of  the  confessing  convert.  "  I  believe 
in  the  Holy  Ghost,  ia  the  Holy  Church,"  so  the  con- 
fession runs.  Harnack  finds  in  this  relation  of  the 
Church  to  the  Spirit  a  proof  that  the  Spirit  was  im- 
personal to  the  Church  of  the  second  century.  He 
says,  "I  believe  in  the  Holy  Ghost"  is  not  as  in  the 
two  others  —  of  Father  and  Son  —  enlarged  by 
personal  but  by   material  terms;  that  is,  by  "Holy 


i     .'I, 


iMii 


M 


111-! ';.' 


4^ 


296 


77/ f  //o^y  Ghost  and  Trhiity 


Church,  forgiveness  of  sins,  resurrection  of  the  flesli  " 
— therefore  the  Spirit  is  "a  gift,"  the  same  as  the 
Church  or  pardon  of  sin,  and  is  not  personal,  save  as 
^'the  Spirit  of  God  is  God  Himself"  (Das.  Ajwst. 
S.  27).  That  is  surely  most  astonishing  reasoning. 
It  takes  the  marvelous  ground  for  a  Bible  student, 
that  an  impersonal  predicate  is  proof  that  the  subject 
is  impersonal  also.  David  says  God  is  "  my  rock  and 
my  salvation :  lie  is  my  defence."  Does  that  mean 
that  Jehovah  was  impersonal?  (cf.  Zockler,  S.  39). 
We  might  ask  further:  How  can  Holy  Church  or 
resurrection  be  regarded  as  a  predicate  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  as  "  Almighty  "  is  of  the  Father,  or  "  only  Be- 
gotten" of  the  Son  ?  The  creed  looks  upon  them  in 
another  light  entirely.  The  Church,  forgiveness  and 
eternal  life  are  effects  of  the  work  of  the  Spirit,  and 
there  is  no  inference  to  be  drawn  from  the  material 
character  of  the  gift  to  the  impersonal  character  of 
the  Giver.  ^  The  order  of  Father,  Son,  Spirit,  and 
Church  is  just  that  found  in  Athenagoras,  who  wrote 

1  Ilarnack  tries  to  argue  further  that  the  absence  of  the 
article  before  ' '  Holy  Ghost "  in  the  earliest  creed  indicates  the 
impersonal  nature  of  the  Spirit  (S.  26).  But  such  omission,  as 
early  usage  shows  in  this  case  as  in  the  case  of  "  Christ,"  where 
the  reference  is  not  to  definite  manifestation  in  the  work  of 
salvation,  did  not  in  any  way  deny  the  personality  of  the  Spirit 
(cf.  ZOckler,  1.  c.  S.  32).  Kattenbusch  admits  this  and  says  it 
means  "  not  merely  an  instrumental,  material  power, but  the  power 
of  personality"  (Z(3ckler,  S.  23).  Zahu  maintains  (/u/m/)/"  nm 
das  Apostolikuin,  Niirnberg,  1893)  that  it  is  Harnack's  utter 
rejection  of  the  supernatural  that  animates  his  attack  upon  the 
Apostles'  Creed.  Hence  his  strenuous  efforts  to  get  the  Divine 
Christ  and  the  Holy  Ghost  out  of  the  Creed,  before  Irenaeus 
and  TertuUian  appear  with  Apostolic  writings  in  their  hands. 
H.trnack  says  Irenaeus  attempted  the  impossible,  in  trying  to 


»•■ 


w 


Involved  hi  the  Divine  Christ. 


297 


about  the  time  this  Creed  arose,  and  in  Irenaeus 
(IV.  6,  7; IV.  20, 1 ;  V.  18,  2),  who  v.rote  a  little  later, 
both   ^f  whom  had  decided  views  on  the  Trinity. 

The  opinion  of  Harnack  that  the  Spirit  is  personal 
only  because  "the  Spirit  of  God  is  God  Him?elf,"  and 
that  apart  from  the  Father,  the  Spirit  is  only  a 
"  power  and  gift,"  runs  counter  to  the  traditional 
thought,  prayers,  benedictions,  doxologies,  and  bap- 
tismal formulas  of  the  Church.  The  tradit'onal  faith 
could  even  at  times  think  of  the  Spirit  p,s  a  creature, 
and  often  as  subordinate;  but  ever  fought  tendencies 
known  as  Monarchian,  which,  like  Harnack,  identified 
the  Spirit  with  God  as  Spirit.  Even  the  Arians,  the 
logical  outgrowth  of  Monarchianism,  felt  the  faith  of 
the  Church  so  strongly  that  they  never  assailed  the 
personality  of  the  Spiriv.  They  called  Him  the 
Paraclete;     He  was  one  of  three   ov6iai  or  vno6Td6Bt%.'^ 

We  now  come  to  the  first  theological  discussion  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  and  its  lormai  elaboration  by  Nicene 
and  post-Nicene  Fathery.  The  student  will  do  well 
at  the  outset  to  bear  some  leading  facts  in  mind: 

(1)  And,  first  of  aM,  this  controversy  arose  about 
the  year  350,  in  opposition  to  Semi-Arianism,  which 

follow  the  New  Testament  in  teachiiii?  that  the  Divine  Logos 
became  incarnate  by  the  Holy  Spirit  overshadowing  the  Virgin 
>Mary  (I.  S.  498);  and  calls  the  attempt  of  "all  the  Fathers 
since  Irenaeus"  to  explain  what  the  Holy  Spirit  did  in  the 
incarnation  of  Christ  "  the  most  wonderful  speculations";  not 
recognizing  that  these  very  attempts  show  the  full  and  firm 
conviction  that  both  the  birth  of  the  Virgin  and  the  con- 
ception by  the  Holy  Spirit  were  essential  factors  in  primitive 
faith. 

'  Cf.  Gwatkin,  Studies  of  Aria)nsm,  Cambridge,  1882,  p. 
28. 


m 


liii 


mm 


|i:i 


I 


fc'Ml 


:- 


298 


The  Holy  Gliont  and  Trinity 


claimed  more  and  more  to  believe  in  the  Divinity  of 
Christ,  but  less  and  less  retained  faith  in  the  Deity 
of  the  Spirit.  ^ 

(2)  The  question  was  approached,  accordingly, 
pret'minently  from  the  side  of  the  Divine  Son  of  God; 
for  if  lie  were  equal  to  the  Father,  it  was  felt  the 
Spirit  also  could  not  be  less  than  God. 


If. 


w:- 


r-i-r 


'  Harnack  finds  the  beginning  at  the  Council  of  Sirniiuni, 
A.  D.  351  (II.  278).  Cf.  Basil,  Ep.  cxxv.  He  says  of  Eu- 
nomius,  who  had  called  the  Holy  Spirit  a  creature:  "He  is 
the  first  of  all  those  who  have  attacked  the  truth  from  the 
day  when  the  preaching  of  the  true  doctrine  was  promulgated, 
who  has  dared  to  put  forth  this  word  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
For  we  have  never  heard  any  one  up  to  this  day  call  the  Holy 
Spirit  a  creature,  nor  in  the  works  they  have  left  do  we  find 
such  an  appellation"  (Cont.  Eunom.  II.  270,  quotr^d  by  Jen- 
kins, From  the  death  of  St.  Athanasius  to  the  death  of  St. 
Basil.  London,  1894,  p.  25).  In  opposition  to  such  errors, 
Jenkins  thinks  Basil  caused  the  addition  respecting  the  Holy 
Spirit  to  be  made  to  the  Nicene  Creed  (p.  27).  He  did  fi>r 
the  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Ghost  what  Athanasius  did  for  that  of 
the  Divine  Christ.  All  the  additions  made  to  tho  Creed  are 
found  in  the  writings  of  Basil.  His  friend  A}  ollinaris  took 
similar  ground,  and  defended  the  Jlomoousia  of  the  Spirit  (cf. 
Drliseke,  yij^ollinarios  von  Laodicea,  Leipzig,  1892,  S.  214f.) 
against  Eunomius.  But  Athanasius  held  that  what  the  Cappa- 
docians  elaborated  respecting  the  Spirit  was  all  involved  in  the 
decision  atNicaja  [Ad  Afros, x\.).  The  doctrine  thacthe  Spirit 
was  created,  he  says,  was  there  rejected;  because  after  the  full 
Deity  of  Christ  was  proclaimed  the  words  were  added,  "and 
we  believe  in  the  Holy  Ghost,"  thus  "  confessing  perfectly  and 
fully  the  faith  in  the  Holy  Trinity,"  as  "the  exact  form  of  the 
faith  of  Christ,  and  the  teaching  of  the  Catholic  Church."  It 
is  interesting  to  find  the  East  Syrian  Church,  in  the  time  of 
Athanasius,  and  remote  from  Greek  speculation,  holding  ten- 
aciously the  full  divinity  of  both   Son  and  Spirit;  though  the 


1 


Involved  in  the  Divine  Christ. 


299 


(3)  The  unfolding  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Spirit 
was  seen  also  to  involve  the  completion  of  the  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity ;  hence  theologians  like  Basil  and  the 
Gregories  hardly  did  full  justice  to  the  Person  and 
work  of  the  Spirit,  because  of  a  desire  to  expound  the 
Trinity. 

(4)  All  the  Church  Fathers  who  took  part  in 
this  discussion,  V)oth  East  and  AVest,  appear  as  Apolo- 
gists and  defenders  of  an  ancient  faith.'  1'hey  pro- 
test against  the  paganism  and  Judaism,  the  Sabel- 
lianism  and  Arianisni  of  those  who  denied  the  Divine 
Christ  and  the  Divine  Spirit.  They  claimed  simply 
to  expound  and  expand  the   baptismal  confession  of 

West  Syrian  Church  led  by  Anlioch  and  in  a  Greek  atmosphere, 
l)ecaine  largely  Arian.  The  semi-Arian  opposition  to  tlie 
Holy  Spirit  appeared  in  a  time  of  growing  religious  demorali- 
zation in  the  Church.  Gwatkin  says  {Studies  of  Arianisfn, 
1882,  p.  248)  that  the  Ilomceans  "  as  a  body  had  no  consistent 
principle,  exco{»t  they  would  not  define  doctrine."  They  fell 
into  a  chaos  of  opinions,  and  "in  this  anarchy  of  doctrine  the 
growth  cf  irreligious  carelessness  kej)t  pace  with  that  of  party 
bitterness."  It  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  in  this  confusion  of 
thought  and  life,  both  consistency  of  doctrine  and  purity  of  life 
were  on  the  side  of  men  like  Basil  and  the  Gregories,  who  de- 
fended the  full  divinity  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

1  Aj)ollinaris  in  an  epistle  to  Basil  (in  Driisoke,  S.  118)  wrote 
(A.  D.  3G2)  that  "  the  Fatliers  put  the  Spirit  in  the  same  faith 
with  God  and  the  Son  because  He  is  in  the  same  Godhead."  He 
a])i)eals  to  Paul  (II  Cor.  xiii.  1:3)  and  the  baptismal  formula 
(S.  233).  "The  Spirit  with  God  and  the  Son  is  glorified."  lie  is 
eternal  (23G),  omnipotent  as  God  (238),  and  there  is  no  eternal 
life  apart  from  llim  (240).  ather.  Son  and  Spirit  form  "the 
same  Triad  forever,"  and  "each  hy])0Stasis  has  its  own  charac- 
ter "  (echoing  Ileb.  i.  3;  cf.  S.  244).  Cf.  also  Gregory  Naz. 
Ortff.  xxi. 


'if 


I 


F"    il 


,(:•  J 


ill! 


ii 


irf 

r; 

(1 

{    ; 

■       1      ' 

;: 

£ 

4    h    ' 

i 

1 1 

■ 

I     ' 

m 

»i 

S, 

h  ' 

1 

iu^ 

1 

u 


300 


The  Holy  Ghost  and  Trinity 


it 


faith   by  which  Christians  had  entered  the  Church 
from  Apostolic  days  down. 

(5)  They  appealed,  further,  unceasingly  to  the 
Scriptures,  and  to  the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
and  they  shrank  from  using  terms  and  definitions  not 
found  in  the  Bilde  or  capable  of  derivation  from  the 
teachings  of  Revelation.  They  were  inclined  to 
associate  philosophy  with  heresy. 

(6)  In  the  case  of  Hilp,/y  and  Athanasius,  but  in 
a  less  degree  of  the  Cappadocian  bishops,  the  doctrine 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  and  of  the  Trinity  was  approached 
and  canvassed  Avith  direct  reference  to  the  work  of 
man's  redemption,  especially  as  imparted  in  baptism 
and  enjoyed  in  Christian  experience.^ 

*  Swete  (p.  85)  shows  that  Marcellus,  the  friend  of  Athana- 
sius, held  the  procession  of  the  Spirit  from  both  Father  and  Son 
as  from  one  divine  dpxv-  He  took  this  position  in  opposition 
to  Eusebius  of  Caesarca  (Z>e  Eccles.  Theologia  HI,  6,  in  Swete  p. 
85),  who  held  the  Spirit  was  created  by  the  Son  and  His  proces- 
sion meant  only  original  nearness  to  God  and  His  mission  in  the 
work  of  salvation.  Marcellus  almost  lost  the  personality  of  l)oth 
Son  and  Spirit  in  the  oneness  of  their  divine  life;  but  he  first  in 
the  Greek  Church  taught  the  double  procession  of  the  Spirit. 
Epiphanius  aloiie,  however,  among  the  Greeks  clearly  and  fully 
taught  that  the  Spirit  proceeded  "from  both"  the  Father  and 
the  Sou  (Swete,  p.  98).  Athanasius  was  satisfied  to  speak  of 
both  the  Divine  Christ  and  the  Divine  Spirit  proceeding  from 
the  Father.  The  Spirit  comes  from  the  Father  through  the 
Son  and  "cannot  be  parted  cither  from  Him  that  sent  or  from 
Him  that  conveyed  Hiin"  [De /SenfcHtM  Dion t/sii  xvii.).  He 
argues  that  since  the  Son  possesses  the  Spirit  equally  with  the 
Father,  He  must  be  divine  as  is  the  Father.  Christ  as  God 
gave  the  Spirit  to  Himself  as  Man  (c.  ^Ir.  i.  46).  It  was  not 
the  gift  of  the  Si)irit  that  made  Christ  divine;  the  Spirit  re- 
ceived what  He  gives  in  salvation  from  Christ  (iii.   24).     Only 


Involved  In   the  Divine  C/tri.'^f. 


301 


the 


St  111 

»irit. 


and 
kof 
;rom 
the 
Ifroin 
He 
the 
God 
not 
lit  ve- 
[)nlv 


(7)  The  chief  difference  l)etween  Athauasius!, 
who  opened  this  discussion,  and  the  Cappadocians, 
who  closed  it,  was  that  the  former  was  satisfied 
with  the  v'noov6ia  of  the  Spirit  as  a  test  of  orthodoxy, 
while  the  latter  i)roceeded  to  analyze  the  immanent 
relations  of  the  one  Divine  ijvcia  into  three  Divine 
vTiodrddeii  of  Father,  Son  and  Spirit. '    Here  the  doc- 

as  men  receive  Clirist  through  the  Spirit  have  they  the  grace  that 
saves.  Hence  to  reject  the  Divine  Christ  was  to  lose  also  the 
Divine  Spirit,  cease  to  be  Christian,  and  fall  back  into  Judaism. 
He  reiterates  the  view  that  the  Spirit  is  related  to  the  Son  as 
the  Son  to  the  Father  (Ad.  Scrap,  i.  21).  Against  Semi-Arians, 
he  said  the  question  was  "Trinity  or  Duality"  (  Ih.  i.  29).  To 
reject  either  Son  or  Spirit  was  to  "blaspheme  the  Sacred  Trini- 
ty." His  argument  is:  the  Trinity  is  a  fixed  doctrine  of  Chris- 
tianity, fixed  by  Scripture,  tradition  and  experience;  hence  to 
deny  the  divinity  of  the  Spirit  was  to  make  the  Trinity  part 
divine  and  part  created,  which  was  absurd.  He  says  the  Gnos- 
tic Valentine  first  invented  the  notion  that  the  Spirit  is  ar  an- 
gelic being.  He  got  it  from  passages  like  I  Tim.  v.  21  (i.  10). 
He  says  the  Bible  nowhere  calls  the  Holy  Spirit  an  angel.  He 
is  "above  all  creation  and  one  with  the  Godhead  of  the  Father" 
(i.  12.).  We  must  be  content  with  what  the  Scriptures  say  of 
this  mystery  (i.  19).  Jle  urges,  however,  the  argument  from 
experience:  the  indwelling  of  the  Spirit  makes  us  temples  of 
God,  and  "  if  the  Holy  Spirit  were  a  creature  there  could  not  be 
through  Him  any  transfer  of  God  to  us"  (i.  24);  for  being  joined 
to  a  created  thing  would  never  make  us  {)artukers  of  the  Div  ine 
Nature.  He  builds  here  on  I  John  iv.  i;L  The  bond  uniting 
the  Church  to  Christ  and  (iod  was  the  Spirit;  if  that  is  not  Di- 
vine and  Almighty,  all  is  lost  (i.  28).  How  could  men  cling  to 
the  "creature  of  a  creature"  (Christ)?  Cf.  P^piphanitis,  //. 
Ixix.   56. 

»  In  a  valuable  note  (A".  Gesch.y  1845,  I.  2,  S.  63)  Gieseler 
makes  plain  that  the  Nicene  Synod  regarded  ov6ia  and  v7ro6rddti 
as  synonymous.    Athanasius  said  they  meant  the  same.  Gregory 


s,' 


r 


11'> 


302 


The  Jloly  Ghost  and  Trinity 


Si 


trine  of  tlie  Holy  Gliost  passed  over  mto  that  of  the 
Trinity. ' 

(8)  Finally,    while   most  Trinitarian  theologians 
follow  the  analytical  teachings  of  Basil  and  Gregory 

of  Nazianzeii  thought  this  was  done  because  the  Latin  had  only 
one  word  Substantia  for  both  (Gieseler  sees  here  the  influence 
of  Ilosius).  Hence  the  phrase,  "three  beings"  or  "three 
hypostases,"  sounded  Arian  in  Alexandria  and  Rome;  though 
when  Athanasius  admitted  that  we  might  speak  of  God  as  one 
hypostasis,  or  F'atlier,  Son  and  Spirit  as  tliree  hyj)Ostases,  he 
opened  the  door  for  all  that  the  Cappadocians  felt  it  needful  to 
say.  Basil  represents  a  de])arture  from  this  terminology.  He 
said  {Ej).  230):  "  Outtia  and  Hypostasis  have  the  difference 
which  exists  between  what  is  common  to  several  and  what  ' 
peculiar  to  each."  Hence  he  held  Ousia  should  be  applied  to 
the  Godhead  as  such  and  as  belonging  equally  to  Father,  Son 
and  Spirit,  while  IFijpostasis  should  be  employed  to  indicate 
the  peculiar  personal  character  of  Father,  Son  and  Spirit.  Yet 
he  anxiously  asks  his  learned  friend,  Apollinaris  of  Laodicea, 
(cf.  Drfiseke,  S.  101)  whether  "the  Fathers  used"  the  term 
Oxisia  in  reference  to  God,  or  if  the  Scrii)ture8  containe  \  it. 

The  only  case  of  a  non-Trinitarian  creed  in  the  first  three 
centuries  of  the  Church  is  that  of  Aphraatcs  (337-345),  whose 
Homilies  are  the  earliest  after  those  of  Origen  handed  down  to 
us  (cf.  Translation  by  Bert,  in  Text.  u.  Unter.  Bd.  III.  1888). 
His  creed  has  a  seven-fold  division,  professing  faith  in  (1)  God, 
(2)  the  Creator,  (3)  Lawgiver  through  Moses,  (4)  who  sent  the 
prophets,  (5)  who  sent  the  Messiah,  (G)  the  Resurrection,  and 
(7)  Baptism.  He  adds:  "That  is  the  faith  of  the  Church  of 
God."  He  then  gives  practical  directions  and  says:  "That  is 
the  work  of  faith,  which  is  built  upon  the  true  Rock,  which  is 
Christ,  upon  whom  the  whole  building  rests."  This  shows  that 
the  relation  of  creeds  to  practical  faith  was  closer  than  Harnack 
assumes,  when  he  says  that  directions  for  Christian  life  were 
not  taken  into  the  short  forms  of  confessions  (cf.  Bert.  S.  18). 

^  Cf.  Thomasius,  L  262.  The  difference  between  Athanasius 
and  the  Caj)padoeians  was  not  in  the  doctrine  held,  but  rather  in 


I  ill 


Involved  in  the  Divine  Christ. 


303 


Nazianzonus,  still  the  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
goes  into  no  metaphysical  details,  but  simply  declares 
that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  "  Lord,  giver  of  life,  who  pro- 
ceeds from  the  Father,  and  with  the  Father  and  Son 
together  is  worshiped  and  glorified,  who  spake  by  the 
prophets." 

The  course  of  this  controversy  respecting  the 
Spirit  was  complicated ;  for  it  was  part  of  the  fifty 
years  war  of  Semi-Arianism  in  which  the  Emperor 
supported  heterodoxy  and  rival  synods  divided  the 
Church.  It  was  especially  serious  that  just  when  not 
a  few  Semi-Arians  began  to  accept  the  Divine  Christ 
and  return  to  the  Church,  loyalty  to  truth  led 
Athanasius  and  others  to  put  an  obstacle  in  their 
way  by  teaching  that  the  Homoousia  of  the  Son  in- 
volved that  of  the  Spirit  also.  In  exile  he  wrote 
his  Upi-stles  to  Serctpion,  against  the  Tropici,  who 
made  the  Scripture  teachings  on  the  Spirit  meta- 
phorical; he  showed  that  two  persons  in  the  God- 
head was  a  caricature  of  Christianity.  Returning  to 
his  diocese  in  302,  he  called  a  synod,  which  de- 
clared no  man  could  reenter  the  Church,  who  held 
that  the  Spirit  is  a  creature,  or  separate  from  the 
Being  of  the  Son.'  Synods  in  Antioch  (8r>2),  Rome 
(four  between  808-331),  Illyria  (375),  Icoiiium  and 
elsewhere,  agreed  with  the  belief  of  Athanasius  and 
the  Church  of  Egypt.^  But  the  Semi-Ai'ians  were 
strong;  Macedonius  (deposed  3<')0)  declared  the  Holy 

tlie  terms  by  which  to  express  wliat  both  held  in  common. 
See  Waterlanil,   Works,  Oxford,  1823,   III.  ]).  404ff. 

1  Cf.  the  Synod  Letter,  in  Tom.  ad.  Antioch. 

2  Jerome  says  the  whole  West  accepted  it  as  expressing 
their  belief.  {^Adc.  Lucifer,  p.  302). 


fw 


i  I 


,?^.  I 


304 


The  Holy  Ohost  and  Tt'inity 


Ghost  but  a  ministering  angel  of  God,  while  Eunomius 
united  all  heretical  parties  to  teach  that  the  Son  was 
only  a  creature,  while  the  Spirit  was  a  creature  of 
that  creature.  Everything  was  in  confusion — creeds, 
parties,  religion  and  morals  (cf.  Gwatkin,  p.  248). 
The  rising  tide  of  Monasticism,  favored  by  Athanasius 
and  Basil,  helped  restore  purer  living,  while  these 
same  champions  of  orthodoxy  fought  also  for  the 
sanctifying  doctrines  of  the  Divine  Christ  and  the 
Eternal  Spirit.  The  General  Council  of  381  finally 
(1)  reaffirmed  the  Nicene  Creed,  (2)  condemned  all 
Arians  and  Pneumatoraachoi,  and  (3)  revised  the 
baptismal  creed  of  the  Church  in  Jerusalem,  with  its 
fuller  teachings  upon  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  made  it 
an  Ecumenical  Symbol  for  all  time.^ 

The  chief  considerations  urged  by  these  Nicene 
theologians  in  support  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Spirit 
were: 

( 1 )  The  impossibility  of  the  Trinity  being  partly 
divine  and  partly  created.  Athanasius  said:  "The 
whole  Trinity  is  one  God.'"^ 

(2)  Christian  experience  proves  (a)  that  the 
Spirit  is  divine,  for  He  gives  eternal  life  and  holiness, 
which  God  alone  can  grant,  and  (b)  must  be  of  one 
substance  with  Father  and  Son  because  His  work  is 
inseparable  from  theirs.  Basil  says:^  "This  same- 
ness of  operations  shows  clearly  the  identity  of  nature." 

1  Cf .  Hort.  TicQ  Dissertations,  Cambridge,  18V6;  and  Har- 
nack's  Article  in  Real.  Encyk.  f.  Prot.  TheoL,  2  Ed.  An. 
Konst.  Symbol.  Harnack,  however  (II.  266),  doubts  if  the 
matter  was  voted  on  here. 

'^  Ad  Scrap.  I.  2,  17,  20. 

^  Do  Spiritu  tSaucto,  vii. 


m 


Involved  in  the  Divine  Christ. 


306 


(3)  They  appeal  to  baptism,  because  this  would 
be  in  vain  without  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  Spirit  can- 
not be  torn  from  the  Father  and  Son  in  this  sacred 
formula. 

(4)  While  the  personality  of  the  Spirit  is  not 
dwelt  upon,  it  is  everywhere  implied.  Athanasius 
and  Basil  teach  that  "all  things  are  effected  and  given 
from  the  Father,  through  the  Son,  and  in  the  Holy 
Ghost  "  (ib.  xvi.).  The  Spirit  is  "  in  all,"  the  "  per- 
fecting principle  "  in  both  creation  and  man. 

(5)  And  this  economic  position  of  the  Spirit  is  a 
manifestation  of  His  immanent  oneness  with  the 
Father  and  Son.  Athanasius  uses  the  old  illustration 
of  the  sun,  light,  and  radiance  of  light  (1.  c.  i.  19,  20) 
to  describe  the  relation  of  Father,  Son  and  Spirit. 

(6)  Beyond  this  point  we  are  led  by  the  Cappa- 
docians  into  the  Unity  of  God  and  the  Trinity  of  Per- 
sons or  Hypostases.  Harnack  tries  hard  to  find  here 
a  Trinitarian  scientific  theology,  which  overthrew 
largely  the  Homoouaia  of  Athanasius,  by  setting  it  in 
the  Neo-Platonic  framework  of  Origen.  He  says 
that  as  late  as  the  "middle  of  the  fourth  century  "  the 
doctrine  of  a  personal  Spirit  "  was  unknown  to  most 
Christians."*  It  was  a  product  of  "the  scientific 
Greek  theology,"  especially  that  of  the  Cappadocians. 
Now  it  is  true  that  they  revived  the  doctrine  of  the 
eternal  generation  of  the  Son;  they  set  forth  His  cos- 
mical  as  well  as  His  soteriological  relations;  they  un- 
folded what  was  meant  by  Athanasius  in  the  Homo- 
ousia  of  the  Spirit;  they  introduced  more  definite 
terms  to  escape  what  Harnack  calls  "  the  terminolog- 
ical helplessness  of  Athanasius"  (H.  50).     But  in  all 

»  Das.  Apost.  Glaub.,  S,  26. 


ii 


r 


1 


\h 


ti  i 


30C 


77te  llolif  Ghoat  and  Triyiity 


i\\\%  they  wrought  no  such  revolution  as  the  Ritschl 
critics  suppose.'  Neither  consciously  nor  uncon- 
sciously did  these  fourth  century  theologians  fatally 
pervert  the  faith  of  the  Church;  not  consciously,  be- 
cause they  all  solemnly  declare  that  they  set  forth  the 
belief  of  Christians  as  found  in  tradition  and  the 
Scriptures;  not  unconsciously,  for  we  iiud  the  same 

1  Ilarnack  thinks  the  view  of  Athanasius  respecting  the  Son 
and  Spirit  differed  from  that  of  the  Cappadocians,  by  seeking  to 
drop  the  whole  "Trinitarian  speculation  of  Origcn,  of  which 
Athanasius  wished  to  know  nothing,"  but  which  tlio)  "  rehabili- 
tated" (II.  258).  Athanasius,  however,  fought  for  all  the 
])hilosophy  involved  in  Christianity  itself  and  necessary  to 
defend  the  real  divinity  of  both  Son  and  Spirit  (cf.  J'Jp.  de 
>^!/nod.  v.  and  often).  Neither  is  it  right  to  represent  the  vic- 
tory of  ^asil  over  Eunomius  as  "  the  triumph  of  Neo-PIatonism 
over  Aiistotleism."  Such  a  i)Osition  can  be  taken  only  by  a 
historian  who  proceeds  on  the  assumption  that  all  "  scientiHc'' 
theology  is  unchristian,  and  that  the  "union  between  faith  and 
science "  is  but  a  dream  (II.  259).  The  orthodox  Fathers 
accused  the  Semi-Arians  of  being  led  into  error  by  Aristotelic 
ideas,  showing  how  little  the  former  were  conscious  of  being 
diverted  from  Scripture  teachings  by  i)hilosophy  (cf.  Baur, 
JC  G.  I.  387;  Gieseler,  K.  G.  IV.  Auf.,  Bd.  I.  2  Ab.,  S.  58). 
The  Council  of  Constantinoj)le  did  not  revise  the  Creed  of 
Niciea,  but  declared  its  satisfaction  with  it  (cf.  Canon  I.). 
Gregory  Nazianzen  says  the  most  that  Council  would  have  done 
to  the  N  icene  Creed  would  have  been  to  enlarge  the  article  on  the 
Holy  Spirit  (II.  Ep.  to  Cledonius,  cf.  Kattenbusch,  Confess iotis- 
kunde,  Freiburg.  1892.  I.  S.  255).  These  later  Fathers  were  not 
conscious  in  any  respect  of  differing  from  those  of  Nicaja  in 
their  views  of  the  Trinity.  And  the  Nica^a  men  declared  they 
held  the  views  of  holy  men  before  them.  Yet  Ilarnack  keeps 
on  repeating  that  the  efforts  of  Aristides,  Justin,  Irenaeus,  and 
all  later  Fathers  to  be  true  to  the  teaching  that  Christ  was 
born  of  a  Virgin  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  that  lie  was  also  the 


w 

:  I'- 


ll !| 


Involved  in  the  T>icine  C/iri-^t. 


307 


ISO 


the 


doctrines  of  the  Holy  Spirit  and  the  Trinity  taught 
as  well  before  the  Cappadocian  philosophers  did  their 
deadly  work  as  after  they  taught  that  God  exists  as 
Mia  otcia  iv  Tpi6iv  vTioCrdaediv.  I  can,  in  closing  this  lec- 
ture, but  give  you  a  few  proofs  of  this  last  statement.' 
(1)  We  have  seen  that  as  far  back  as  TertuUian 
the  Trmitas  was  spoken  of  theologically,  and  the 
term  "  persons "  applied  to  Father,  Son  and  Spirit. 
He  knew  that  each  Person  had  His  "  {property  "  [pro- 
j9?'iV^^^s),  just  as  the  Cappadocians  said  each  had  His 
i8ioona\  and  spoke  of  the  second  and  third  Persons 
having  their  source  in  the  First.  The  Senii-Arianisni, 
which  Harnack  finds  in  the  Cappadocian  Trinity, 
could  be  found  in  TertuUian;  the  Father  is  God,  self- 
existent;  the  Son  and  Spirit  are  "caused"  by  Him; 
not  because  of  philosophical  speculation,  but  because 
the  Bible  taught  the  begetting  of  the  Son  and  the  pro- 
cession of  the  Spirit. 

Divine  Logos  incarnate,  and  combine  all  that  the  Synoptists 
and  the  Fourth  Gospel  say  of  the  Incarnation  attempt  "to 
unite  the  ununitable."  Eiforts  to  combine  "Adoption"  and 
"Pneumatic"  Christology,  though  both  may  come  from  the 
New  Testament,  he  pronounces  "the  strangest  speculations." 
The  attempt,  finally,  to  add  a  Divine  Spirit  to  this  Christology, 
to  reach  aTrinity,  he  really  considers  to  be  "  nonsense  "  (II.  2  i:J). 
Goethe  has  said  somewhere:  "He  who  will  understand  the  poet 
must  go  into  the  land  of  the  poet."  Harnack  has  not  yet  gone 
into  the  land  of  religious  philosophy.  He  shuns  it  on  princi- 
ple. If  love  alone  can  truly  reveal,  it  is  plain  that  antipathy  on 
principle  to  philosophy  in  religion  will  make  a  man  blind  even 
to  the  truth  that  lies  in  it. 

*  I  follow  here,  in  the  main,  Swete,  The  Apostles*  Creed. 
London.  1894.  p,  30ff.  To  this  very  able  reply  to  Hamack's 
Das  Apostol.,  I  am  indebted  for  not  a  few  valuable  sug- 
gestions. 


II 


308 


The  llohj  OlwHt  ami  TrhiHy 


(2)  We  saw  that  Origen  tauglit  the  personality 
of  the  Spirit  and  His  eternal  reflation  to  the  Father 
and  the  Son.  Tie  says:  "No  relation  of  the  Trinity 
can  be  called  greater  or  less"  ( I>e  /*rirt.  i.  3,  4). 

(3)  Before  Athanasius  discussed  the  S))irit,  the 
Synod  of  Siriniuni  (351)  decided:  "If  anyone  calls 
the  Father,  Son  and  Holy  (xhost  one  Person,  let  him 
be  anathema."  *  It  further  declared  that  the  S[)irit  is 
not  part  of  the  Father  and  Son;  neither  are  there 
three  Gods  in  the  Trinity. 

(4)  The  Arians  clearly  admitted  the  personality 
of  the  Spirit;  as  Lucian  of  Antioch  before  them  said 
in  his  cre(»d  that  "  the  names  of  Father,  Son  and  Holy 
Ghost  are  not  mere  idle  titles,  but  accurately  represent 
the  hypostasis,  order  and  glory  proper  to  those  who 
bear  them;  so  that  they  are  three  in  hypostasis  but 
one  in  harmony"  (cf.  Swete,  p.  39).'^ 


m 


iP  v^ 


v\\^' 


W:r- 


liU' 


1  Cf.  Ilefele,  IliHtory  of  the  Chin..  "Councils.  Engl.  Tr. 
Edinburgh,  1870,  Vol.  II.  p.  106. 

2  Tlie  Semi- Arians  held  that  Christ  was  a  cre..tnre  of  God, 
and  the  Spirit  a  creation  of  Christ.  He  was  the  Paraclete 
through  the  Son,  who  was  sent  and  came,  according  to  promise, 
to  instruct,  teach  and  sanctify  the  Ajiostles  and  all  believers 
(so  decided  at  synod  of  Sirniium,  35',',  c'".  Nitzsch,  S.  295). 
Hence  the  question  of  the  creatureshit)  ot  the  Spirit  was  the 
center  of  controversy  between  Athana.iii's  and  the  later  Arians. 
It  was  first  discussed  at  the  Synod  of  Alexandria  (.302),  and 
Macedonianism  condemned.  It  was  held  that  the  Spirit,  as  the 
Son,  was  consubstantial  with  the  Father.  The  opponents  of 
Semi-Arianism  moved  cautiously,  not  because  they  thought  they 
were  teaching  anything  new,  but  (1)  because  they  did  not  want 
to  repel  many  Semi-Arians  who  accepted  the  Divine  Christ  and 
were  returning  to  the  Church;  (2)  because  they  shrank  (cf. 
Basil's  letters  to  ApoUinaris)  from  applying  wrong  terms  to  the 


lit 


Jiivulved  ill   til*    />icine  Cliri-st. 


309 


rl.  Tr. 


(5)  The  ChiiroL  of  Jcriisaleni,  roprtNontcd  hy 
Cyril,  and  with  a  coiifesstioii  of  faith  running  ))ack  into 
the  third  century,  far  from  Cappadocian  perversions, 
taught  tliat  tlie  Spirit  is  "living  and  su]>sisting  and 
ever  present  with  the  Father  and  the  Son,"  a  "real 
substance,  speaking  Himself,"   and  "personal."'     As 

S|»lrit  ami  feared  to  Mas])hcmc,  by  saying  more  than  was  taught 
ill  tho  Scrii)tur('s;  and  (:V)  becauBo,  as  the  doctrino  had  not  l)e('n 
discussed  in  tiu'  Church,  it  was  feared  a  sudden  and  strong 
stalcnient  of  it  might  trouble  less  intelligent  Christians  (cf. 
IJasil,  J'Jjj.  cxxv.,  Gregory  Nazianzen,  Ontt.  xli.  6).  The 
Senii-Arians,  on  the  other  hand,  tried  to  keep  as  close  as  jjossi- 
ble  to  the  Church  docirine,  showing  plaiidy  what  was  felt  to  be 
the  ancient  views  that  preoccupied  the  ground  (cf.  Sirmium 
deliverance),  (iregory  Na/ianzen,  it  is  true,  says  some  thought 
the  Spirit  only  an  "energy."  But  he  says  it  was  *'  philosophers" 
who  held  this  view,  the  inference  being  that  it  was  Semi-Arian 
speculation  and  not  Church  faith  to  which  he  referred  [Orat. 
xxxi.  5).  Others  feared  to  speak  definitely  because  they 
thought  the  Scriptures  did  not  speak  definitely.  But  Gregory 
calls  such  indecision  "a  very  bad  way  to  take."  This  passage 
from  him  must  not  be  ])ressed,  therefore,  as  is  often  done,  to 
teach  that  the  doctrine  of  a  personal,  divine  Spirit  was  some- 
thing new  in  the  Church.  In  this  very  place  he  calls  those 
denying  the  Spirit  "Sadducees"  and  "Greeks"  (cf.  UUman 
Gref/oriKS  I'on  Xtcihuiz.  Gotha.,  ]S()0,  S.  204).  It  should  be 
borne  in  mind,  also,  that  the  Trinitarian  teacliings  of  the  Cap- 
padocians  were  not  fixed  by  a  General  Council,  l)ut  have  been 
followed  essentially  ever  since  by  the  Church  because  believed 
to  be  true. 

1  Catech.  Lecturer,  xvii.  5.  Cyril  says:  He  is  "a  real  sub- 
stance, speaking  Himself,  and  working  and  dispensing  and  sanc- 
tifying." 

Ephraim  the  Syrian,  though  later,  represents  the  traditional 
belief  of  the  far  East.  lie  says:  "If  I  in  my  heart  think  the 
Father  greater  than  His   Son,  may  He  not  have  mercy  on  me, 


310 


The  Iluhj  Ghost  and  Trinity 


5  ' 


■i   t 


1 


t   , 


ii 
0' 


Hi 


!'' 


It: 


I 


early  as  348,  Cyril  said  of  the  Trinity:  "We  preach 
not  ^:hree  Gods,  but  one  God  through  One  Son  togeth- 
er with  the  Holy  Spirit — we  neither  divide  the  Holy 
Trinity,  as  some  do,  nor  work  confusion  like  the  Sabel- 
lians "  (iv.  16).  Ephraim  the  Syrian,  born  under 
Constantius,  shows  that  the  East- Syrian  Church  had 
received  similar  doctrines  by  tradition. 

(6)  The  same  is  true  of  the  Latin  Church. 
Swete  well  observes  (p.  37):  "  It  is  remarkable  that 
this  vital  alteration  in  the  Faith" — that  is,  the  altera- 
tion supposed  by  Harnack — "  was  not  followed  by  an 
alteration  in  the  Western  Creed.  That  Creed  was  in 
a  fluid  state  until  the  eighth  century,  yet  no  Western 
Church  showed  the  faintest  desire  to  modify  the  arti- 
cles which  relate  to  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Ghost.  It 
would  have  been  easy  and  even  natural  to  transfer  to 
the  W  estern  Creed  the  definitions  of  the  Creed  which 
w^as  believed  to  have  been  accepted  at  Constantinople ; 
and  it  may  be  with  some  confidence  assumed  that  this 
would  have  been  done  if  there  had  been  the  least  con- 
sciousness on  the  part  of  the  Western  Church  that  she 
had  executed  the  change  of  front  imputed  to  her. 
But  there  was  no  such  consciousness,  either  in  East 
or  West."  ' 

and  if  I  tliink  the  Holy  Ghost  is  less,  may  my  eyes  grow  dim 
before  my  God."  He  says  "  the  Holy  S2:)irit  proceeds  from  both 
Father  and  Son  "  (cf.  Eiraiuer,  Der  heilige  Ephrdm^  Kempten 
1889,  S.  45f.). 

1  The  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  far  from  being  a  matter  of  ab 
stract  dogma,    promotes  all  our  religious  thinking:  for  (1)  it  is 
involved  in  the  self-consciousness,  knowledge,  and  revelation  of 
God.     Knowledge  involves  self  and  non-self,  subject  and  object. 
The  knowledge  of  God  points  toward  both  subject  and  object 


" 


'rinity 

preach 
ogeth- 
i  Holy 
Sabel- 
under 
ch  bad 

vhurcli. 
>le  that 
altera- 
d  by  an 
,  was  in 
^^estern 
;he  arti- 

lOSt.      It 

insfer  to 
id  which 
tinople ; 
hat  this 
ast  con- 
hat  she 
to  her. 
in  East 


rrow  dim 
(rom  both 
[empteu 

ter  of  ab- 
(1)  it  is 
llation  of 
|d  object, 
id  object 


Involved  in  the  Divine  Christ. 


311 


in  God  Himself,  or  an  "I"  and   a  "Thou"  in  Doity  (cf.  also 
Martineau,  Seat  of  Authority,  p.   342).    (2)  In  God's  relation  to 
creation  and   the  universe  in  both  the  Bible  and  philosophy,  as 
seen  in   Philo  and  the  Greeks  with  their  Mediator  Logos,   God 
above  the  world  and  God  in  the  world  are  distinguished.     The 
Neo-Platonists  even  went  on  to  a  kind  of   Trinity.      (3)  The 
Fatherhood   of  God  involves  Sonship  in  God.     (4)  The  charac- 
ter of  God  as  love  points  to  one  who  loves  and  one  who  is  loved, 
or  a  distinction  in  the  Godhead  admitting  of  an  affection  which 
is   not  self-love.     (The  first  lecture  which  I  heard  the  late  Dr. 
Dorner  deliver  was  on  this  subject.)  (5)  The  Trinity  is  involved 
in  a  religion  of  redemption,  as  Anselm  showed  in  his  Cur  iJeus 
Homo.     God   must  save;    He  must   save   in  Humanity  and  for 
Humanity.     He  must  then  recreate  man  that  he  may  accept  this 
salvation.     The  history  of   Christianity  with  her  preaching  of 
Father,  Son  and  Spirit  is  a  proof  of  the  vital  character  of  the 
doctrine  Into  which  every  r;mvert  has  been  baptized.     (G)  It  is 
objected   that   the  Trinity  came   from  philosophy;  that  is  not 
true,  as  we  have  seen;  but  if  some  of  the  deepest  students  of 
human  nature,  such   as  the  Neo-Platonists,  Augustine,  Bohme, 
and   Hegel,    found   their  profoundest  thoughts  about  God,  man 
and  the  universe  taking  Trinitarian  form,  it  is  certainly  a  sug- 
gestion that  the  Bible  doctrine  is  not  irrational  (cf.  Orr.  1.  c). 
Finally    (7)  the   impossibility   of    setting    forth   New   Testa- 
ment teachings  apart  from  constant  and  vital  reference  to  both 
one  God,  and  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Spirit,  shows  the  practical 
and  indispensable   nature   of  the  Trinity.     laike  hud  a  Trinity 
(xxiv.    49);    so   had   Peter   (Acts  ii.  33;  x.  38;  J  Pet.  i.  .3f;  iv, 
14),  and  Paul  (II  Cor.  xiii.  14;  Rom.  viii.  11;  I  Cor.  xii.  4f.) 
and  John  (xiv.  16f. ;  xiv.  20;  xvi.  13f.). 


.JA. 


1 
i 


It*      li 


n^ 


■mRHMHHP 


LECTURE   VL 


of  Jaif§  ant)  fo  j[E>oama. 


i  r 


818 


m 


i\  }i 


*'To  believe,  therefore,  as  the  word  stands  in  the  front  of  the 
Creki),  and  not  only  so.  but  is  diffused  through  every  article 
and  proposition  of  it,  is  >  "  -snt  to  the  whole  and  every  part 
of  it,  as  to  a  certain  and  lu.  Ae  truth  revealed  by  God,  and 
delivered  unto  us  in  the  wriuugs  of  the  blessed  Apostles  and 
Prophets,"  Pearson.     Exposition  of  the  Creed,  Art.  I. 


'•En  supprimant  le  dogme  Chretien,  on  supprirae  le  Chris- 

tianisme;  en  ecartant  absolutement  toute  doctrine  religieuse,  on 

tue  la  religion  elle-mene.     Un^  vie  religieuse  qui  ne  s'exprimer- 

ait  point,  ne  se  connaitrait  point,  ne  se  comniuniquerait  point." 

Sabatier.     J)e  la  vie  intime  des  dogm.es,  p.  25. 


« '  America  can  never  do  better  than  continue  true  to  the 
principles  of  the  Pilgrim  Fathers." 

Harnack.     Remark  in  a  lecture.     1891. 


814 


LECTURE  VI. 

THE    DOCTRINE     OF    THE    DIVINE    CHRIST    IN    ITS     RE- 

LATION    TO    THE    RULE    OF   FAITH 

AND    TO    DOGMA. 

It  is  a  merit  of  the  theology  of  Ritschl,  and  one  for 
which  we  cannot  be  too  grateful,  that  it  everywhere 
gives  the  Per&on  and  the  teaching  of  Jesus  the  very 
first  place,  and  presents  the  gospel  as  an  overwhelm- 
mg  impression  of  the  altogether  lovely  One,  which 
makes  Christians  delight  to  obey  the  laws  of  His 
Heavenly  Kingdom.^      But  with  this  great  merit  goes 

»  Pfleiderer   sees    the  real  significance  of  the  theoWy  of 
Ritschl  in  this  that  it  -is  tlie  theological  expression  and  mirror 
ot  the  general  consciousness  of  the  time,  accor  ling  to  its  stroncr 
and  justifiable,  as  well  as  truly  also  according  to  its  weak  and 
dangerous  sides  (quoted  in  Nippold,  iJie  Einzdschnle,  II    l) 
fechoen  shows  very  elaborately  that  it  is  the  culmination   of  all 
previous  theology.     It  is  a  wonderful  complex  of  i,leas  from 
Kant,  Lotze,  Schleiermacher,  Menzen,  and  even  contemporaries 
and  colleagues,  such  as  Biodermann,  Lipsius,  Diestel  and  others 
It  must  not  be  overlooked  how  much  stimulus  of  a  good 
kind  Ritschl  gave  to  theological  and  historical  study.       He  on 
posed  the  extreme  positions  of  Baur.       He  calle.l   men  to  leave 
philosophy  and  study  the  Scriptures.       He  defended  the  Apus- 
tohcity  of  most  New  Testament  books.     He  placed  Christ,  and 
the  Revelation  in  Him,  in  the  center  of   all    theology        He 
pointed  to  the  importance  of  Christ's  teaching  of  religion  as  a 
holy  kingdom  of  heaven.       He  laid  great  stress  upon  Christian 

815 


tm 


il 


316 


The  JS^ieeue  Christology 


u 


■  ^   1 

\^^BM 

H '* 

Is 

\  i 

*■» 

wmt] 

:  1 

m  ^' 

Wi 

t* 

the  great  defect  of  really  rejecting  the  Trinity 
from  which  Christ  came  to  save  men,  and  whose  co- 
operation is  everywhere  involved  in  the  teachings  of 
the  New  Testament  and  the  doctrines  of  the  Church. 
Jesus  said  to  the  laboring  and  heavy-laden:  "Come 
unto  me, ....  and  I  will  give  you  rest."  Paul  said  to 
the  convicted  jailer:  Believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  and  .hou  shalt  be  saved"  (Acts  xvi.  31). 
Jesus  was  the  door,  the  way  to  eternal  life.  When, 
however,  the  convert  looked  toward  the  new  life 
upon  which  he  was  to  enter,  he  was  told  that  the 
bath  of  regeneration  took  place  "into  the  name  of 
the  Father,  and  of  the  Son  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost  " 

living.  There  are  also  many  single  truths  which  Ritschl  pre- 
sents that  are  very  important.  Some  of  these  are:  the  aim  of 
justification  is  the  begetting  of  true  morality;  faith  in  justifica- 
tion makes  us  free  rulers  of  all  things;  the  certainty  of  recon- 
ciliation through  Christ  must  precede  joyous  faith  in  the  pa- 
ternal providence  of  God;  the  idea  of  the  Kingdom  of  God'is 
made  prominent,  also  the  Chuich,  in  contrast  to  all  individual- 
istic piety;  faith  preserves  its  power,  not  in  renouncing  tlie 
world,  but  in  a  sound  rule  over  the  world;  the  Christian  life  is 
a  process  of  becoming  divine;  the  evangelical  Christian  life  has 
its  decisive  mark  in  the  quality  of  its  moral  exercises  in  the  free 
air  in  Avhich  it  shows  its  love;  Christian  perfection  has  its  es- 
sential condition  in  the  presentation  of  a  unity  of  our  course  of 
life;  joy  is  to  forin  the  fundamental  tone  of  a  life  which  has 
justifying  faith;  and  our  knowledge  of  God  must  begin  not 
from  above,  but  from  beneath,  from  the  humanity  of  Christ 
(cf.  F.  Luther,  J)ie  I'hcoloyie  Eitschh,  A  Lecture,  1887). 

Nippold  says  in  general  of  the  theology  of  Ritschl  (Ges- 
chichte  dcr  Deiitschen  Theologie.  Berlin,  1880.  S.  441):  "There 
can  be  no  doubt,  that  the  joy  of  proclaiming  the  gospel  full 
and  free,  and  proclaiming  it  alone,  has  been  awakened  by  no 
theologian  of  the  last  decades  in  a  greater  degree  than  by 
Ritschl." 


the  Rule  of  Faith  and  Dogma. 


317 


(Matt,  xxviii.  19).  Christ  was  the  mediator  of  the 
fullness  of  God  the  Father,  and  mediated  this  fullness 
through  the  Spirit.  This  is  not  an  empty  formula;  but 
a  great  doctrine  inseparable  from  the  Incarnation  and 
every  part  of  the  work  of  the  divine  Christ.  If  Christ 
came  from  the  Father  and  as  Son  on  earth  could  pray 
to  the  Father;  if  He  promised  that  the  Holy  Spirit 
would  come  and  do  what  He  had  left  unfinished;  then 
it  i^  clear  we  have  the  work  of  man's  redemption 
through  Jesus  built  everywhere  upon  the  eternal  re- 
lations of  the  Trinity.  Instead  of  this  view  springing 
from  theological  abstractions,  we  can  see  from  the  ex- 
perience of  the  first  Christians  that  it  lay  in  the  most 
primitive  gospel.  The  Apostles,  though  educated  as 
severest  Monotheists,  did  not  stumble  at  the  Trinity; 
for  as  they  partook  of  the  life  of  Christ  it  grew  within 
them  in  threefold  relations  as  naturally  as  food  pro- 
duces flesh  and  bone  and  brain,  or  as  wise  education 
feeds  mind  and  will  and  heart.  They  came  through  the 
Son  to  the  Father,  and  later  to  know  of  the  Spirit — 
this  might  be  called  their  more  outer  experience; 
then  through  the  Spirit  of  Pentecost  they  were  led 
afresh  to  see  what  was  the  work  of  Jesus  and  His  re- 
lation to  the  Father — this  was  their  more  inner  expe- 
rience.^ And  what  was  true  of  them  haii  been  true  of 
all  Christians  since.  AVe  apprehend  these  deep  things 
of  God  first  through  spiritual  fellowship)  with  Christ; 
through  Him  we  receive  the  Spirit  of  adoption,  which 
tell  us  that  we  are  the  sons  of  God ;  and  as  Ave  confess 
the  Son,  we  know  that  Ave  have  the  Father  and  the 
Spirit  also  (I  John  iii.  23). 


^   Cf.     Gore,    The  Incarnation  of  the  Son  o/    God. 
Bampton  Lectures  for  1891.  p.  144. 


The 


\i^ 


il) 


1':' 
ill  M 


3    ^"ii. 


l^'.. 


;,i 


318 


77/6  Nicene  Clwistology 


It  is  not  at  all  surprising,  in  view  of  these  things, 
to  find  the  earliest  Confession  of  Faith  in  the  Church 
professing  belief  in  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghost,  or 
to  learn  that  this  Confession  was  alluded  to  also  as 
professing  the  name  of  Christ.  The  starting  point 
in  the  history  of  this  Christo-centric,  Trinitarian 
Creed  is  of  course  the  famous  passage  Matt,  xxviii. 
1*.):  "Go  ye,  therefore,  and  make  disciples  of  all  the 
nations,  baptizing  them  into  the  name  of  the  Father 
and  of  the  Son  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost;  teaching  them 
to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  I  commanded  you; 
and  lo,  I  am  with  you  alway,  even  unto  the  end  of 
the  world."  This  is  a  most  pregnant  utterance.  If 
these  be  the  words  of  Jesus  they  are  His  oAvn  solemn 
claim  to  be  the  very  center  and  heart  of  the  Trinity, 
the  Omnipresent,  Divine  Revealer  of  the  love  of  God 
and  the  communion  of  the  Spirit.  We  are  not 
surprised,  then,  to  hear  Nitzsch,  Ilarnack,^  and 
others,  in  spite  of  all  the  Trinitarian  teachings  of 
the  New  Ti  tament,  ^  deny  that  this  is  a  saying  of 
Jesus.  But  Kesch  has  made  it  very  evident  by 
tracing  this  passage  through  early  literature  back  to 
Apostolic  days,  that  it  is  a  part  of  the  genuine  Logia 
of  Christ.  ^  The  great  objection  urged  against  it  is 
that  the  New  Testament  elsewhere  speaks  of  baptism 
"in  the  name  of  Christ."  Such  an  objection,  how- 
ever, proceeds  on  the  assumption  that  "  in  the  name 
of  Christ"  and  "in   the  name  of  Father,  Son  and 

1  He  says  "it  is  no  word  of  the  Lord,"  I.  56,  68. 

2  Cf.    inter   alia,  I   Cor.    xii.   4f.;  II   Cor.    xiii.    13;  Eph. 
iv.  4fi'.;     See  Clemen,  N.  Kirch.   Ztft.  VI.  II.  4.  S.  326. 

8  Aussercanon.  Paralleltexte  zv  d.  Evangel.  H.  II.  Leii)zig. 
1894,  S.  303f. 


W^Y 


the  l^nJe  of  Judith  and  Dogma. 


310 


Spirit,"  meant  different  things,  or  that  the  use  of  the 
one  meant  that  the  other  was  not  employed.  That 
neither  was  the  case  Resch  has  abundantly  shown. 
The  same  writers  all  the  way  from  the  New  Testa- 
ment to  Eusel)ius  speak  of  both  formulas,  using  "  in 
the  name  of  Christ"  as  a  plain  al)breviation  of  the 
Trinitarian  statement.  AVhere  ba})tism  is  ceremoniaUif 
spoken  of,  as  in  Matt,  xxviii.  19,  in  the;  Didache 
(vii.  2),  in  Justin  Martyr  (I  .1;?.  61;  />/<//.  39),  in 
Origen  (^De  Prin.  i.  1),  it  is  clearly  declared  to  be 
in  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghost; 
\y\wY^  general  2)^'(>fi''''<^io)b  of  faith  is  the  ])rominent 
idea,  there  the  briefer  form  "  in  the  name  of  Christ" 
appears.  *  Far  from  the  formula  "  in  the  name  of 
Christ  "  beinsf  the  oriccinal  of  which  the  Trinitarian 
fornmla  is  an  enlargement,  the  fact  that  John  came 
from  God,  j^i'eparing  the  way  of  Christ  by  preaching 
baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  that  Jesus  Himself 
was  baptized  beneath  the  revelation  of  the  Father  and 
the  Spirit,  show  that  the  commission  which  He  re- 
ceived as  "the  Great  Apostle"  was  the  same  that 
He  gave  the  Twelve,  to  baptize  into  the  name  of 
Father,  Son  and  Spirit.  It  may  be  also  observed 
that  the  two  cases  mentioned  in  the  Acts  (viii.  IG; 
xix.  5)  of  baptism  in  the  name  of  Christ — the  bap- 
tism of  the  Samaritans  and  the  disciples  of  John — 
^vere  hasty  and  irregular;  as  if  a  forerunner  of  the 
later  heretical  formula  found  in  the  third  century.'^ 
There  is,  then,  not  the   least  ground  for  finding  a 

1  Ilermas,   Vis.  iii.  7,  3;  Bid.  ix.  5. 

2  ZOckler,  Ziim  Apostolikum,  S.  13.  Cf.  Cyprian,  Ep. 
Ixxiii.  18;  Ixxiv.  5;  Firrailian,  Ep.  ad  C\fpr.  vii;  xi;  and 
Swaiuson,  Greek  Liturgies,  1883. 


'  .3 


41 

I 


If. 


320 


^Tif  Xicene  Christoloyij 


non- Trinitarian  baptismal  formula  in  tlie  new  Testa- 
ment, and  there  is  no  gap  between  the  Apostles  and 
the  outspoken  Trinitarian  theologians  where  the 
origin  of  such  a  thing  can  l)o  discovered.  After  most 
minute  research  into  the  literature  of  the  first  four 
centuries,  Resell  is  convinced  that  in  ante-Nicene 
Christendom,  orthodox  l)elievers,  extra-Canonical 
Scriptures,  litui-gical  formulas,  Patristic  writers, 
heretics — whether  Ebionites,  Montanists,  Gnostics, 
Monarchians,  Priscillianists,  or  Manichseans  —  are 
perfectly  unanimous  in  presupposing  a  Trinitarian 
confession  of  faith  as  the  primitive  form  of  belief  in 
the  Church.  ILf  says:  "Not  one  of  tlie  numerous 
heretical  tendencies  of  the  primitive  Church  moved 
toward  the  Trinity;  and  yet  we  find  (onoiuj  almost 
all  heretical  tendencies^  'Trinitarian  l*{qftisnial  for- 
mulas in  use,  formulas  which  are  out  of  all  connection 
with  their  peculiar  heretical  tendencies,  and  often  in 
direct  contradiction  to  them"  (S.  425). 

Now  the  important  point  in  all  this  for  us  is,  that 
the  Divine  Christ  is  here  found  enthroned  with  the 
Father  and  the  Spirit  in  the  first  expression  of  the  con- 
fessional consciousness  of  the  Church.  Even  within 
the  New  Testament  itself  the  outlines  of  such  a  con- 
fession appear,  crowning  Him  Lord  of  all.  ^  The 
baptismal  formula,  when  answered  by  the  convert, 
formed  naturally  a  rudimentary  creed  of  three  mem- 
bers. But  with  this  arose  also  a  profession  of  faith 
in  Jesus  Christ,  and  acknowledgment  of  His  work  of 
redemption.  We  would  thus  have  such  articlcb  as  ( 1 ) 
I  believe  in  Father,  Son   and  Holy  Ghost,  and  (2)1 


*  So  llausleiter,  Zakn,  Lemme,  and  Ilarnack  formerly.     Cf. 
his  article  iu  P.  li.  E.  '^  I.  S.  571;  and  Clemen.  1.  c. 


,1}  ft 


▼▼I 


the  Mule  of  Faith  and  Dogma. 


\V1\ 


believe  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  This  second  article 
grew  much  faster  than  the  first,  and  simply  collected 
bits  of  confesision  about  Christ  already  current  in  the 
Apostolic  Church.  Without  going  beyond  the  New 
Testament,  we  get  a  confession  of  faith  in  Christ,  who 
suffered  "under Pontius  Pilate"  (I  Tim.  vi.  1.')),  who 
was  dead,  buried,  risen  on  the  third  day,  ascended  into 
heaven,  sitting  at  the  right  hand  of  God  (Mk.  xvi. 
19)  representing  us,  who  will  come  again  to  judge 
the  quick  and  the  dead.  *  Clemen  thinks  it  very  likely 
that  St.  Paul  already  knew  a  two-membered  creed 
which  contained  nearly  all  that  is  here  said  about 
Christ.  Thus  the  confession  of  the  Church  was  es- 
sentially: "  I  believe  in  the  Trinity,"  and  "I  believe 
in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  Tt  would  be  a  short  and 
easy  step,  next,  whether  the  Creed  were  regarded  as  a 
rule  in  preaching  (so  Ilarnack),  or  for  instruction 
of  young  converts,  or  for  baptism,  to  make  the  con- 
fession of  Christ  thus  enlarged  simply  the  second 
member  of  the  Trinitarian  creed — and  so  the  essentials 
of  the  so-called  Apostles'  Creed  would  have  taken 
outline  already  among  Apostolic  converts.  Caspari, 
the  greatest  authority  on  this  subject,  says:  "  The 
baptismal  Symbol  in  its  whole  eoiitent><  goes  back 
beyond  all  question  to  the  Apostolic  age."  - 

In  the  Apostolic  Fathers  we  tind  this  view  con- 
firmed. Clement  of  Rome,  in  a  most  striking  passage  of 
the  Greek  conclusion  of  his  Epistle  recently  recovered, 
writes  in  the  name  of  the  Church  in  Rome  (Iviii.  2): 
'*  As  God  liveth  and  as  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  liveth, 

1 1  Pet.  iii.  19;  iv.  5;  Eph.  iv.  9;   II  Tim.  iv.  1;  Acts  x.  42. 

2  Qiielleu  zur    Gesch.  d.    Tauf symbols,  18G6,   i.    S.  v.;  also 
Ritschl,  iJii(ste/aa)f/,  S.  340;  and  Thoinasiiis,  JJ.G.  I.  152. 


m 

i 


m 


<M 


* 


:::-.:i|, 


322 


The  JVii-cnc  C/iri-^fo/ot/t/ 


) «      1] 


and  the  Holy  Gliost,  who  are  tlie  faitli  and  the  liope 
of  the  elect."  This,  as  Caspar!  points  out,  is  e(iuiva- 
lent  to  the  confession:  "  We,  the  elect,  that  is  Chris- 
tians, believe  and  hope  in  God,  in  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  and  in  the  Holy  Ghost."'  Here  are  two  most 
important  truths:  first  the  Old  Testament  oath,  "As 
the  Lord  liveth,"  is  given  l»y  Clement — a  man  who 
followed  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  implicitly — its  Chris- 
tian form:  "  As  God  liveth,  and  as  the  Lord  Jesus 
Ciirist  liveth,  and  the  Holy  (ihost  liveth  ";  and  second 
all  the  salvation  which  the  elect  hoped  for  was  found 
in  Father,  Son  and  Spirit.  Such  a  solemn  statement 
of  faith  in  the  personal  Trinity  by  the  Church  of 
Home,  as  early  as  A.  D.  05,  presupposes  long 
familiarity  with  that  doctrine,  and  makes  the  con- 
clusion inevitable  that  it  was  part  of  the  gospel  first 
preached  in  Rome,  and  taught  anew  by  St.  Paul  in 
person  and  l)y  Epistle.  This  Trinitarian  creed  ir 
Rome  in  Apostolic  days  may  also  be  regarded  as  the 
p.orent  of  the  formal  Confession  of  Faith  which  can  be 
tiM^?cd  to  this  city  some  thirty  or  fo'  ty  years  later  (cf. 
Caspari,  S.  14).  It  helps  us,  also,  to  see  that  the  appar- 
ent identification  of  the  Son  and  Spirit  by  Hermas,  who 
taught  in  the  same  church  half  a  century  after  Clement, 
should  not  be  pressed  as  a  typical  expression  of  the 
doctrinal  belief  in  Rome. 

Ignatius  of  Antioch  speaks  in  similar  terms  of  the 

Trinity,  saying:  "May  ye  prosper in  faith  and 

love,  in  the  Son  and  in  the  Father .and  in  the 

Spirit  "  (^Jf(uj.  xiii) ;  where  he  most  significantly  puts 
the   Son  first   as  the    Revealer  of  the  Trinity  of  faith 

1  J)e)'  Glauhe  an  dif   Trim'tat  froffcs  in  dcr  Kirche  des  ersten 
Christl.  J<i/irhu)Hle)'(s.     Leipzig.  1JS94.    A  i):iin})hlet.  S.  7. 


[1,^ 


the  Hale  of  Faith  and  Dogma. 


323 


and  love  to  the  Christian.  His  Christo-centric  teach- 
ings lead  him  also  to  reproduce  the  enlarged  second 
member  of  the  creed.  Von  der  Goltz  (S.  94)  iinds  this 
Confession  of  Faith,  which  enthroned  Jesus  as  God,  to 
contain  ( 1 )  belief  in  "  one  God  who  lins  manifested 
Himself  through  Jesus  Christ  His  Son  "  {M(((/.  ix.  1 ; 
vii.  2),  and  (2)in  "  Christ  Jesus  our  Lord,  according  to 
the  flesh,  according  to  the  will  and  power  of  God  " 
(Fph.  vii.  2).  Jesus  was  "  of  the  seed  of  David"  (  Jtj)h. 
xviii.  2;  xx.  2),  of  "the  Virgin  Mary,"  "of  the  Holy 
Ghost,"  and  "  of  God  "  (Bph.  vii.  2 ;  xviii.  2  ).  He  "  suf- 
fered under  Pontius  Pilate  "  (Mag.  xi.;  Tral.'ix..  1; 
Smyr.  i.),  "was  truly  crucified,"  (Smt/r.  i ;  7^ral.  ix.  1 ) 
and  "  was  raised  from  the  dead.  His  Father .  aising  Him" 
(Mag.  xi;  Tral.  ix.  1).  It  is  plain  from  these  first 
crystallizations  of  faith  into  a  creed  what  Clement 
meant  by  saying  (  vii.) :  "  Let  us  come  to  the  glorious 
and  venerable  Rule  of  our  Tradition"  ;^  and  when  he 
continues:  "  Let  us  see  what  is  acceptable  to  God  our 
Maker,"  and,  "  Let  us  fix  our  eyes  upon  the  blood  of 
Christ  and  know  how  precious  it  is  to  God  His  Father, 
because  it  was  shed  for  our  salvation"  (viii.) ;  and  then 
appeals  to  the  prophets  as  "  ministers  of  the  grace  of 
God  through  the  Holy  Spirit  preaching  repentance," 
we  feel  how  familiar  a  Trinity  of  redemption  revealed 
through  the  Divine  Christ  was  to  all  his  thinking. 

The  first  creed,  to  which  we  now  come,  runs  as  fol- 
lows: '^  "  I  believe  in  God  the  Father  Almighty.  And 
in  Christ  Jesus,  His  only  begotten  Son,  our  Lord,  who 
was  begotten  of  the  Holy  Ghost  and  Mary  the  Virgin, 

^  Cf.  also  Poly  carp,  Ep.  c.  vii. 

2  See  text  in  Edition  of  Patres  Apost.  by  Gebhardt,  Harnack 
andZahn.   1876.  Vol.  I.pt.  i.  p.  115. 


324 


The  Nicene  (Jhrisiologif 


lit 

r 

If! 

i    '  s  , 


1*1: 


'■]  : 


1 

:  '1^ 

-   T  ! 

^HSmH 

|k  'if  ^ 

^^^^^afsB 

I'i 

:  -i'^ 

; ' 

^V 

:  , 

•■■i  • 

■V' ' 

1 

L 

i. 

who  was  crucified  under  Pontius  Pilate  and  buried, 
who  rose  from  the  dead  on  the  third  day,  ascended 
into  the  heavens,  is  seated  at  the  right  hand  of  the 
Father,  frora  whence  He  comes  to  judge  the  living  and 
dead.  And  in  a  Holy  Spirit,  a  Holy  Church,  forgive- 
ness of  sins,  resurrection  of  (the)  flesh.  Amen."  Here 
the  Divine  Redeemer  is  enthroned  between  God  the 
Father  Almighty  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  in  a  solemn 
Trinitarian  confession  placed  by  the  Church  of  Rome 
in  tlie  mouth  of  every  candidate  foi  baptism,  and  that 
in  the  lifetime  of  men  who  had  seen  the  Apostles. 
More  than  that,  we  can  say  of  it  as  Irenaeus  did  thirty 
5'ears  later,  there  is  nothing  here  taught  which  cannot 
be  traced  to  the  New  Testament  Scriptures.  *     It  is  a 

1  Especially  to  the  teachings  of  .John;  so  that  Caspari  thinks 
the  Symbol  arose  o.  A.  D.  100  'n  .Tohannine  circles  in  Asia 
Minor,  and  passed  thence  to  Rome  {Quellot  III.  143 — 161);  and 
did  not  go  irora  Rome,  the  "seat of  Symbol  legends,"  to  the 
East  as  Kattenbusch  maintains  (Co/ifessionskunde,  261).  ZOck- 
ler  thinks  this  old  Roman  symbol  c.in  be  traced  to  the  beginning 
of  the  second  century,  to  A.J).  100 — 12*.  Its  earliest  form 
was  a  Triad,  and  did  not  consist  of  twelve  members  as  Kat- 
tenbusch holds  (Das  Apoetol.  iSyrnbol,  18D4,  Bd.  I.).  It 
rests  upon  Matt,  xxviii.  19;  and  presupposes  a  Trinitarian  form 
of  baptism  (asrainst  Kattenbusch,  who  holds,  referring  to  Kom. 
vi.  3,  that  it  was  in  the  name  of  Jesus);  for  TertuUian,  who  was 
baptized  in  Rome,  about  the  time  the  early  Roman  Symbol  came 
into  use,  speaks  of  ^^ter  mtrcjitari,''''  ^^ter  tingui,-''  not  to  speak 
of  the  Trinitarian  formula  in  the  New  Testament  and  Apostolic 
Fathers. 

The  Rule  of  Faith  is  older  than  Giiostic  influence  in 
the  Church,  as  Miiller  {lurc/tein/eschichte,  S.  74)  infers 
from  the  fact  that  Gnostics  revised  it.  For  example,  Apelles 
changed  "whence  He  comes  to  judge"  into  "whence  also  He 
came,"  and   the  Valentinians  put  "through  Mary"  for  "from 


the  Mule  of  Faith  and  Dogma. 


31.5 


statement  of  facts;  l>ut  it  is  just  these  facts  ■vvhicL 
trouble  men  who  eliminate  the  supernatural  irom 
Christianity.  Professor  Harnack  thinks  the  ascension, 
the  session  of  Christ  at  the  right  hand  of  God,  and 
especially  the  term  "  only  begotten  Son,"  mf  aning 
God  Incarnate,  must  be  expounded  out  of  thif-  Creed. 
{Das  Aiyost.^.  20f.)  Of  this  last  he  says  that  it  meant, 
in  the  middle  of  the  second  century,  only  "the  historic 
Christ  and  his  earthly  appearance."  To  regard  the 
Son  of  God  here  as  divine  and  preexistent  is,  he 
holds,  to  read  post-Nicene  ideas  into  this  primitive 
creed.  Now,  notwithstanding  Ilarnack's  assertion 
that  there  is  only  a  human  Son  of  God  in  this  confes- 
sion as  understood  by  its  framers,  1  am  convinced  that 
the  weight  of  evidence  lies  in  the  opposite  scale.  For 
( 1 )  first  of  all  the  New  Testament  applies  the  term 
novoyevT^i  Oso?  to  Christ  in  the  true  reading  of  John  i.  18, 
as  elsewhere  He  is  spoken  of  as  Movoyevtjivioi  (Johniii. 
16)  and  preexistent.  (2)  Ignatius  speaks  in  like  man- 
ner of  the  nuvoyevrii  Oeo?  and  of  "Jesus  Christ  who  was 
with  the  Father  before  the  wovld  was"  {Mag.  vi.). 
(3)  It  is  true  that  the  Apologists  often  speak  of  the  Di- 
vine preexistent  Christ  as  the  Logos,  and  the  Incarnate 
Christ  as   Son  of  God;  but  they  ever  leav-^h  that  both 

Mary."  They  also  formed  new  Rules  of  Faitk;  which  uA  the 
Church  to  be  more  careful  as  to  the  form  of  her  Ru'  «  and  to 
apply  it  more  literally  as  a  tc.^t  in  opposition  to  the  ii  kgorical 
teachings  of  the  Gnostics.  This  anti-heretical  use  of  the  early 
Symbol  naturally  gave  it  an  exact  form,  hut  its  fjonteits  were 
the  same  as  in  the  Apostolic  days.  Irenaeus  (II.  0,  11)  rays  it 
was  hell  by  the  universal  Church  as  "received  from  the  Apos- 
tles and  their  disciples."  As  he  knew  disciples  of  the  Apostles, 
his  words  should  carry  much  weight. 


:.)\, 


326 


The  Xicene  ChrL^tology 


i'  *  '* 


ii)\i 


m 


terms  belong  equally  to  the  Divine -Human  Messiah. 
Harnack's  argument  is  that  because  the  Creed  does  not 
use  both  terms  to  describe  Christ,  He  is,  therefore,  not 
what  contemporary  literature  describes  Him  to  be  by 
both  terms.  Aristides,  who  wrote  in  Athens  at  the 
very  time  this  Creed  is  supposed  to  have  appeared  in 
Rome  (c.  A.  D.  145),  says  in  his  recently  discovered 
Apology:  "The  Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  Himself  Son 
of  God  on  high,  who  was  manifested  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  came  down  from  heaven,  and  was  born  of  a 
Hebrew  Virgin."^  Justin,  who  was  familiar  with  the 
churches  in  both  Asia  Minor  and  Rome,  at  this  same 
time,  wrote  "  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  only  proper 
Son,  who  has  been  begotten  of  God^  being  His  Logos 
and  first-begotten."^  Other  testimonies  of  the  same 
sort  could  be  given.  (-4)  But,  without  discuss- 
ing them,  I  may  add  the  argument  from  the  Creed 
itself.  It  believes  in  "  God  the  Father  ";  it  also  be- 
lieves in  "  Christ  Jesus,  His  only  begotten  Son."  Har- 
nack  tries  to  think  that  Father  here  is  used  only  in  a 
cosmical  sense,  as  "  Father  of  the  AVorld  ";  but  to  hold 
that  it  does  not  mean  above  all,  "  Father  of  the  Lord 
Tesus  Christ,"  would  be  to  take  the  ridiculous  position 
that  a  Church  of  martyrs  and  confessors  left  out  of  their 
Creed  a  view  of  the  Divine  Fatherhood  which  is  domi- 
nant in  the  New  Testament  Epistles  and  is  a  peculiar 
feature  of  the  Gospels.  ^     Of  course  the  Ritschl  school 

^  Cf.  Rendel  Harris'  Edition,  in  Texts  and  Studies,  I.  1,  Cara- 
bridge,  1891.  p.  32.  See  also  Seeberg,  Der  Apohget  Aristides, 
Leipzig.   1894,  pp.  26f. 

2  Ap.  I.  23;  cf.  also  21,  6, 6;  Ap.  II.  6;  and  passages  collect- 
ed by  Harnack  in  Apost.  leathers,  I.  2,  p.  128f. 

3  Matt.  vii.  21  ;x.  32:  xi.  27;  xvi.  17;  Luke  xxii.  29;  John  v.  17; 


■w  'T^  ■ 


the  Hide  of  Faith  and  Jhxjma. 


327 


cannot  let  this  earliest  Creed,  this  untheological  ex- 
pression of  primitive  faith,  teach  a  Divine  Christ;  be- 
cause this  Creed  arose  before  Gnosticism  and  Hellen- 
ism appeared;  and  their  fundamental  principle  is  that 

xvi.  17;  vi.  65, and  often  elsewhere.  It  is  important  to  notice 
that  the  doctrine  of  the  Fatherhood  of  God  in  His  relation  to  Jesus, 
and  through  Ilim  to  those  who  receive  power  to  become  sons  of 
God,  is  the  very  doctrine  which  recent  scholarshij*,  even  of  the 
liberal  school  (cf.  Brousset,  Jesu  Fredif/t,  1892,  S.  41f.;  Wendt, 
Te'ichinr/  of  Jesus,  I.  184f.),  regards  as  the  most  characteristic 
of  all  the  teachings  of  Christ,  and  the  most  in  contrast  to  the 
transcendental,  Creator-Father  conception  of  Judaism,  Only 
the  most  positive  proofs,  therefore,  to  the  contrary,  can  con- 
vince us  that  the  post- Apostolic  Church  at  once  lost  the  most 
unique  and  striking  doctrine  that  Jesus  taught.  It  should  be 
observed  further,  (1)  that  even  if  the  Apologists  freipiently 
speak  of  God  as  the  Father  of  the  Universe,  as  Jupiter  might 
be  spoken  of,  it  would  be  wrong  to  argue  from  such  Apologetic 
language,  and  from  a  minimum  of  Christian  doctrine,  that  the 
Church  teaching  of  the  second  century  did  not  mean  in  its  Creed 
that  God  was  Father  in  the  evangelical  sense.  (2)  iarna<k'H 
statement  that  the  Apologists  rarely  use  the  word  Fath«'r,  and 
then  only  in  the  sense  of  Creator  is  misleading.  Justin  not  only 
calls  God  "Father  of  all  and  Demiurge,"  borrowing  Greek 
terms,  but  also  speaks  of  Him  as  "the  Father  and  King  of 
Heaven,"  as  "Father  of  righteousness  and  prudence  and  all 
other  virtues"  (II  Ap,  iii.);  also  as  a  Father  who  teaches  men  to 
follow  himself  (II  Ap.  ix.).  (;3)  The  bajiti.'-mal  formula,  which 
nearly  all  scholars  admit  underlay  this  primitive  Creed,  was  that 
of  Father,  Son  and  Spirit,  in  which  the  Father  was  certainly  re- 
lated to  the  Son  and  to  all  believers  "  in  the  full  evangelical 
sense."  (4)  It  should  also  be  noticeil  that  the  earliest  form  of 
the  Apostles'  Creed  (of  c.  A.  D.  140)  had  as  its  first  article:  "  I 
believe  in  God  the  Father  Almighty";  but  that  Gnostic  opposi- 
tion to  God  as  both  Creator  of  the  universe  and  Father  of  Jesns 
Christ  led  the  Church  with  reference  to  both  to  add  to  this 
article  the  words  "Maker  of  heaven  and  earth." 


f 


328 


The  Nlcene  Christologii 


,! 

w 


the  Logos  Christology  sj)rang  from  a  Ilellenization  of 
Christianity.  But  as  we  follow  the  growth  of  early 
Confessions  we  find  just  as  little  room  and  reason  for 
the  uttei"  transformation  of  our  holy  religion,  as  we 
discovered  in  other  lines  of  inquiry.  The  first  Apolo- 
gists, Aristides  and  Justin,  accepted  the  Trinitarian 
Creed  with  the  Divine  Christ  in  its  heart,  and  were 
fully  convinced  that  the  Logos  Christology,  which  they 
set  forth  to  meet  pagan  attacks  and  expressed  in  the 
terminology  of  Greek  philosophy,  was  nothing  else 
than  a  new  statement  of  tlie  baptismal  Confession  re- 
ceived from  the  Apostolic  Clmrch.  ^     The  anti-Gnostic 


1  Aristides   (c.    A.    D.    145)   shows  a  primitive  creed  which 
Rendel  Harris  (j).  24)  collects  as  follows: 

"  We  believe  in  one  God  Almighty 
Maker  of  heaven  and  earth; 
And  in  Jesus  Christ  Ilis  Son. 


pit 


fcl' 


i, 


Born  of  the  Virgin  Mary 
■»  If  >)>  *  4i 

He  was  pierced  by  the  Jews: 
He  died  and  was  buried, 
The  third  day  He  rose  again; 
He  ascended  Into  Ivaven: 


He  is  about  to  come  to  judge." 

Athenagoras.  his  contemporary,  describes  a  similar  Creed. 
He  says  that  Cliristiatis  believed  ia  "God  the  Father  and 
God  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit  (x);  they  "held  their  power 
iu  union  and  their  distinction  in  onler."  This  rich  plurality  of 
personality  in  God  he  urged  against  the  charge  of  Atheism  (cf. 
xiii;  xxiv);  and  not  as  a  philosophical  personitication  but  ns.the 
way  of  salvation.  He  says  (xii.):  "  Christians  areconducted  to 
the   future  life  by  this  one  thing  alone,  that  they  know  God  and 


the  Hide  of  Faith  and  Dogma. 


829 


Fathers,  Irenaeus  and  Tertullian  leading,  present  the 
same  baptismal  Confession,  but  with  this  important 
change  of  attitude:  Irenaeus  calls  it  the  "Rule  of 
Truth,"  which  was  held  by  all  churches,  and  rested 
upon  direct  tradition  from  the  Apostles  through 
the  elders  and  bishops;  it  was  a  summary  of  Scripture 
teachings,  and  therefore  was  a  proof  that  heretical 
doctrines  were  both  novel  and  unscriptural;  *  while 
Tertullian,  under  the  influence  of  Roman  and  juristic 
thought,  turned  the  Rule  of  Faith  into  an  injunction 
against  all  heretics.  He  not  only  urged  with  Ii'enaeus 
that  it  was  Apostolic  in  doctrine  and  had  ever  been 
held  by  the  Church,  but  he  maintained  that  it  should 
be  used  both  as  an  argument  and  as  a  legal  club  to 
smite  down  all  heresy,  without  going  beyond  it  to  the 
Scriptures.  Now  this  was  an  innovation,  which  the 
school  of  Ritschl  regard  too  much  as  a  step  in  the  gi'ad- 
ual  growth  of  doctrine.-  It  put  a  Church  Confession 
and  Church  tradition  in  placeof  theBible,  and  became 
the  forerunner  of  Catholicism.  The  West  followed 
this  method  very  slowly,  otherwise  the  death  blow 
would  have  been  given  at  once  to  all  further  theolog- 
ical  development;  but  the  East  never  adopted  such  a 


1  Creed. 
2r    and 


er 


pow 

ility  of 

[sm  (cf. 

as. the 

ited  to 

lod  and 


His  Logos,  what  is  the  oneness  of  the  Son  with  the  Father,  what 
is  the  communion  of  the  Father  with  the  Son,  what  is  the  Spirit, 
what  is  the  unity  of  these  three,  the  Spi.it,  the  Son,  the  Father 
and  their  distinction  in  unity."  Thcophilus  (ii.  15)  iirst  used 
the  word  ''Trinity  ";  but  offers  no  exphmation  of  it,  regarding  it 
as  a  familiar  thought  in  the  post-Apostolic  Church. 

1  Cf.  I.  9,  4;  III.  1,  2;  2,   2,   and  others  collected  by  Ilar- 
nack,  1.  c.   p.  123f. 

-'  Cf.  Kunze,  3/(/?'c?^s^re/«;7«, Leipzig,  ISO.'j,  S.  185.  Irenaeus 
knows  uo  such  innovation.   Cf.   III.  1;  IV.  35,4. 


0^ 


W; 


11 

ii''  ■ 

] 

■V' 

1 

l- 

s 

' 

^h 


nii 


330 


77k?  jViceyie  Christohnjy 


principle  in  the  discussion  of  doctrine.  All  tlie  Church, 
both  East  and  West,  held  a  simple  baptismal  Confes- 
sion from  the  earliest  days;  ^  but  the  Greek  Church 
never  claimed  that  it  was  the  Apostles'  Creed, - 
neither  was  Apostolic  authority  appealed  toby  the 
Eastern  theologians,  apart  from  their  written  teach- 
ings, in  theological  debate.  The  appeal  of  these  men 
is  to  the  Scrijitures  and  not  to  creeds.  They  defended 
the  traditional  Rule  of  Faith,  as  we  see  in  the  case  of 
Origen  (  De  Prin.  Preface,  and  c.  I.),  their  most  spec- 
ulative theologian,  for  they  regarded  it  as  orthodox 
and  ever  preached  in  the  Church;  but  their  final  court 
of  appeal  was  always  the  Holy  Scriptures.  Cyril  of 
Jerusalem,  who  lectured  on  an  ante-Nicene  Creed, 
writes  at  the  outset  of  his  course:  "As  the  faith  to  be 
learned  and  known,  take  what  is  delivered  to  thee  by 
the  Church  and  is  established  by  all  Scriptures"  (v. 
12).  He  says:  "The  Articles  of  Faith  were  not  com- 
posed at  the  good  pleasure  of  men ;  but  suitable  })or- 
tions  were  collected  from  all  the  Scriptures,  and  make 
the  one  Doctrine  of  Faith."  The  same  is  true  of 
Athanasius  and  Clement  of  Alexandria,  who  never  fly 
to  the  "  short  cut"  of  Tertullian  in  dealing  with  here- 
tics; but  refute  them  by  reasoning  out  of  the  Script- 
ures. In  o[)position  to  Harnack,  who  doubted  if  there 
were  a  baptismal  Confession  in  the  Alexandrian 
Church  in   the   time   of   Clement,   Caspari   not  only 

^  See  Irenaeus,  I.  10,  2,  who  was  an  Eastern  man,  also  Justin, 
who  was  familiar  with  both  East  and  West.  Cf.  Oehler.  Lchr- 
buchder  SymboUk.  2  Ed.  Stuttgart.  1891.  S.  45;  also  Caspari, 
ii.  96,  108. 

2  It  was  quite  otherwise  in  the  West,  where  TertuUian's 
view  of  the  Rule  of  Faith  grew  stronger,  till  Rulinus  tells  the 
story  of  the  Apostolic  authorship  of  the  Creed. 


v:\¥'- 


the  Rah  of  Faith  and  Dogma. 


\VM 


shows*  the  existence  of  such  a  Confession,  but  points 
out  further  that  every  convert  regarded  it  as  a  cove- 
nant with  God,  in  wliich  l)y  confessing  Christ  he  also 
professed  to  accept  a  summary  of  the  teachings  of  the 
Scriptures.  Thus,  instead  of  following  Ilarnack  and 
Kattenbusch,-  to  regard  the  "  Roman  Symbol,"  and 
Tertullian's  Roman-legal  application  of  it  as  norma- 
tive for  later  doctrinal  development,  we  must  defend 
the  essentially  Protestant  position  taken  by  the  Greek 
theologians  and  the  Greek  l)aptismal  practice,  in  ever 
refusing  to  test  belief  by  a  traditional  creed  only,  and 
demanding  proof  of  orthodoxy  from  the  Scriptures, 

These  observations  will  help  us  to  see  how  far  the 
baptismal  Creed  of  the  Churches  was  affected  by  op- 
position to  heresy  or  by  the  Alexandrian  speculative 
theology,  and  how  far  philosophy  thrust  a  metaphysi- 
cal Christ  into  it,  thereby  opening  a  way  for  the  Ni- 
cene  Dogma.  We  have  seen  that  Irenaeus  made  the 
Rule  of  Faith  a  test  of  sound  doctrine;  that  was  his 
step  forward.  Tertullian  then  made  it  a  legal  in- 
junction;  but  his  innovation  lies  to  one  side  of  the  de- 
veloj^ment  of  Creed  life.  The  Eastern  theology  con- 
tinued in  the  line  of  Irenaeus,  and  the  new  advance 
made  here  in  respect  to  the  ba])tismal  confessions,  es- 
pecially of  their  Christological  center,  was  in  the  di- 
rection of  theological  e.vpot<ition.  Praxeas,  Paul  of 
Samosata,  Arius,  all  claimed  to  follow  the  Apostolic 
faith.  It  was  necessavy,  therefore,  to  c  pand  and  ex- 
pound the  Confession  in  defense  of  »bat  the  Church 
always  held  it  to  teach. 

1  Ztft.  f.  Kirch.  Wissen.  u.  Kirch.  Lehen,  1880,  S.  352  f. 
-  Lehrbuch   der     Vcrgleich.      ConfcsoionskiuHle.     Freiburg, 
1S02.  I.  201. 


332 


The  Nlcetie  Ckridolvjij 


P}Y, 


The  crucial  question,  therefore,  is:  Did  the  doc- 
trine of  a  Divine  Christ  come  into  the  creeds  of  Chris- 
tendom by  means  of  speculative  exegesis  and  as  a  prod- 
uct of  Greek  j^hilosophy  between  the  time  of  Ire- 
naeus  and  Athanasius?  We  have  already  seen 
reasons  for  believing  that  the  baptismal  confessions 
of  the  Church  regarded  "Christ  Jesus,  His  only  be- 
gotten Son,  our  Lord,"  as  divine  before  Hellenism 
touched  Christian  belief.  That  view  is  strengthened 
by  the  fact  that  TertuUian,  the  first  man  who  be- 
gan to  put  a  theological  explanation  of  Christ  into  his 
Rule  of  Faith  (^Adv.  Prax.  ii.),  was  little  influenced 
by  Greek  speculation.  Renter  adds  to  this  the  impor- 
tant consideration '  that  from  the  time  of  TertuUian 
to  Augustine  a  relatively  independent  C/hristological 
formula  had  arisen  in  the  West,  which  was  kept  by 
tradition,  and  yet  when  finally  compared  with  the 
Nicene  theology  was  found  to  be  essentially  the  same. 
Harnack  admits  all  this  (^^.^  709);  but  does  not 
allow  it  to  weigh  as  it  should  against  his  Hellenistic 
origin  of  Christology.  The  period  between  A.  D.  260 
and  A.  D.  325,  in  which  the  theologizing  of  the 
creeds  went  on  in  the  East,  was  a  dark  time  in  which 
the  history  of  Confessions  can  be  only  dimly  traced.^ 

^  See  his  Augustin.  Sludien,  iu  Ztft.  f.  Kirchengeschichte. 
vi.  150f. 

2  It  is  a  strange  fact  "that  the  Church  History  of  Eusebius, 
the  nearer  it  approaches  his  own  time,  say  from  the  death  of 
Origen,  becomes  more  and  more  scanty,  and,  what  is  more  sur- 
prising, his  source  material  instead  of  becoming  richer  contin- 
ually diminishes,  so  niuoh  so  that  the  seventh  book,  which 
covers  the  period  from  251-f504  A.  D.,  is  almost  wholly  com- 
posed of  the  letters  of  Dionysius  of  Alexandria."  Cf.  Over- 
beck,  Ucber  die  Attfiiiige  d.  K.   G.  Basel.  1892.  S.  40. 


the  Hide  of  Faith  and  l)o<juui. 


aa3 


We  do  see  such  things  as  the  Letter  of  llymeuaeiis  of 
Jerusalem  and  his  five  colleagues  to  Paul  of  Samo- 
sata,'  the  Creed  of  Gregory  Thauiuaturgus,'-  the  dis- 
ciple of  Origen,  and  the  Epistle  of  Alexander  of  Alex- 
andria to  his  namesake  of  Constantinople.'  But  these, 
as  well  as  the  form  of  the  Jerusalem  Confession  ex- 
pounded by  Cyril,  and  the  early  Creed  of  Ancyra 
just  enucleated  by  Kunze  from  the  recently  discovered 
writings  of  Marcus  Eremita,*  only  show  tliat  the  faith 
of  the  Church  was  clothing  itself  more  than  ever  in 
theological  terminology,  and  that  what  the  bishops  of 

1  Cf.  Routh,  Reliquiae  Smrae,.Oxion\,  1848,  III.  289. 
2SeeSchaff,  Church  Ilistort/,  New  York,  188:},  II.  799. 

3  Gregory  taught  "there  is  one  Holy  Si>irit,  having    His 

subsistence  from  God  and  being  made  manifest  by  the  Son 

the  Holy  Fount. . .  .in  whom  is  manifested  God  the  Father .... 
and  God  the  Son.  There  is  a  perfect  Trinity  in  glory  and 
eternity."  He  says  "there  is  nothing  either  created  or  servile 
in  the  Trinity"  (Schaff  1.  c).  Here  is  all  that  Athanasius  and 
the  Cappadocians  contended  for — one  Go<l  in  three  Persons. 
His  contemporary,  Dionysius  of  Rome  (d.  269),  held  the  name 
doctrine.  He  believed  in  the  "Monarchy"  of  God  (cf.  Water- 
land,  Works,  III.  318),  and  opposed  those  in  Alexandria,  wno 
"divided  the  holy  unity  into  three  different  Ili/postancs.''^  But 
he  regarded  Hypostasis  as  meaning  Being  or  Deity;  and  op- 
post,  1  only  Tritheism.  He  said  the  Bible  teaches  "the  Trin- 
ity" but  not  "three  Gods."  Hence  it  is  rather  one-sided  for 
Harnack  to  say  Dionysius  held  the  Monarchy  and  the  Trinity 
side  by  side  with  no  thought  as  to  their  relation  (I.  085);  for  he 
goes  on  to  say  that  the  Son  was  begotten  and  not  made,  that  He 
was  eternal,  and  that  His  generation  was  "divine  and  inexplic- 
able." He  adds  further,  that  there  was  no  need  for  him  to  ex- 
plain these  things  to  "man  filled  with  the  Spirit,"  such  as  he 
addressed  (Routh,  III.  375). 

*  3Iarcus     Eremita.     Ein    neuer    Zeuge    f.    das    Altkirch. 
Taufbekenntniss.  Leipzig,  1895. 


334 


The  N'lcene  Clirhtology 


■ 


leading  churches  such  as  Alexantlria  and  Jerusalem 
felt  to  be  true  doctrine  they  naturally  fitted  into  the 
framework  of  the  baptismal  Confessions.  Harnack 
(ir^.  6-44)  and  Hatch  think  the  Epistle  of  Ilymenaeus 
the  most  instructive  example  from  the  generation  be- 
fore Nicioa  of  the  petrifaction  of  the  primitive  Rule 
of  Faith  by  Hellenism.  It  is  called  "  philosophical 
dogmatik  presented  as  the  faith  itself,"  or  ''speculative 
theology"  of  the  Origenistic  school  thrusting  a  Divine 
Christ  into  the  baptismal  Confession.  Now  in  this  esti- 
mate everything  is  looked  at  through  anti-metaphysi- 
cal spectacles;  here,  as  elsewhere, Harnack  shows  that 
he  wrote  his  History  of  Dogma  in  the  interests  of  the 
theology  of  Ritschl  and  put  in  the  foregrouiid  only 
what  favors  his  hypothesis.*  In  the  present  instance 
he  fails  to  notice  that  these  bishops  wrote  against 
Monarchianism  and  were  necessarily  apologetic  and 
theological  in  meeting  a  philosophical  opponent.  He 
does  not  try  to  sho^v  that  these  Confessions,  expanded 
in  the  controversy  with  Paul  of  Samosata  and  Arius, 
were  Church  Creeds, or  were  more  than  polemic  pamph- 
lets.'^ The  claim  of  the  writers  to  simply  unfold 
Apostolic  teachings  is  ignored;  and  their  constant  ap- 
peal to  the  Scriptures  is  set  aside  by  the  remark  that 

1  Cf.  Loofs,  in  Deutsch-Evangel.  BlUttcr.  H.  xi.  S.  183. 

2  Though  we  know  that  the  local  churches  of  the  East,  es- 
pecially in  such  centers  as  Alexandria,  Antioch,  Jerusalem  and 
Ancyra,  put  into  their  creeds  all  the  leading  doctrines  which 
were  held  by  Christians;  they  had  no  idea  that  the  longer  the 
churches  lived  and  the  more  the  Spirit  led  them  into  all  truth, 
the  less  they  would  know  with  certainty  and  the  shorter  their 
Confession  of  Faith  would  become.  Heresy  especially  led  them 
to  enlarge  their  creeds. 


the  Hide  of  Faith  and  Thxjnia. 


335 


tlioy  followed  the  exegesis  of  Origen,  who  allegorized  a 
Div  111(3  Christ  into  the  Old  and  New  Testaments. 
Finally,  no  attempt  is  made  to  indicate  how  far  the 
ex[)osition  of  the  Creed  came  from  the  Bible  and  what 
part  of  it  sprang  from  Greek  philosophy.  Under 
these  circumstances  I  cannot  do  V>etter  than  translate 
parts  of  this  Epistle  and  let  these  Fathers  of  Jerusa- 
lem spt'ak  al)out  Christ  for  themselves.'  After  saying 
what  they  believed  about  God  the  Father,  they  pro- 
ceed: "And  we  confess  and  preach,  as  we  are  taught 
in  ])oth  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  that  [Jesus 
Christ]  is  the  begotten  Son,  only  begotten,  being  im- 
age of  the  invisible  God,  first  born  of  all  creation 
(Col.  i.  15),  Wisdom  and  Word  and  Power  of  God 
(I  Cor.  i.  24),  being  before  all  worlds,  not  God  ac- 
cordinjT:  to  foreknowledije,  but  in  Beincf  and  in  Person 

(^ovGiaxdi  vno6zd6Ei)^  God,  Sou    of   God.         And   wllOSO- 

ever  objects  to  the  Son  of  God,  and  does  not  believe 
and  confess  that  He  was  God  before  the  foundation  of 
the  world  (cf.  Eph.  i.  4),  saying  that  it  is  to  pro- 
claim two  Gods  to  preach  that  the  Son  of  God  is  God, 
such  an  one  we  consider  an  alien  to  the  Church 
Canon;-  and  all  the  Catholic  churches  agree  with  us." 
Then  these  good  bishops  add  a  page  of  quotations 
from  the  Scriptures  in  support  of  their  doctrine;^  and 
continue:  "This  Son,  who  was  always  with  the 
Father,  we  believe  to  have  fulfilled  His  Father's  will 
in  the  creation  of  all  things.      For,  '  He  commanded 

1  See  the  original  text  in  Routh,  1.  c,  III.  200. 

2  That  is,  the  Rule  of  Faith.   Cf.  Caspari,  Ztft.  f.  K.  W.  u. 
k.  Zieben,  1.  c. 

8  Such  as  Ps.  xlv.  6;  Is.  xxxv.  4,  6,  14;  and  Rom.  ix.  5. 


il  i 


3.'5<; 


77/^  Nicene  Clivh<toJoijij 


\ 

?'(' 


P.! 

It' 

\A 

%. 

4. 


1'^ 


Ihi 


1 

\      ■     ' 

; 

:''     1 

. 

1      1 

: 

* 

I" 

and  they  were  created  (Ps.  cxlviii.  5).  But  He  who 
commands,  commands  another;  and  we  are  persuaded 
He  was  none  otlier  than  God,  the  only  begotten  Son  of 
God,  to  whom  He  also  said:  'Let  us  make  man/'' 
More  passages  of  Scripture  are  cited,*  and  th«^y  con- 
tinue of  Christ:  "  Thus  He  really  and  truly  exists  and 
works,  as  tin;  Word  together  with  God  ;  through  whom 
the  Father  made  all  thinijrs;  not  as  through  an  instru- 
ment  nor  as  through  impersonal  knowledge;'-  for  the 
Father  begot  the  Son  as  a  power  (^Vtp^fia),  living, 
personal,  working  all  in  all;  as  it  is  written,  "I  was 
with  Him  when  He  laid  the  foundations  of  the  earth  " 
(Prov.  viii.  liO).  They  say  that  Christ  appeared  as  the 
angel  of  the  Lord  to  Al^i'aham  and  Moses,  and  S2)ake 
to  the  prophets.''  They  then  add:  "The  Son  being 
with  the  Father  and  beino;  God  and  Lord  of  all  ere- 
ated  things,  was  sent  from  heaven  by  the  Father  and 
became  flesh  to  l)ecorae  man,  AVherefore  also  that 
body  taken  from  the  Virgin,  in  which  all  the  fullness 
of  the  Godhead  dwelt  bodily,  was  united  unchange- 
ably with  the  Godhead  and  deitied."  In  closing  they 
say:  "  If  Christ  is  the  power  of  God  and  the  AVisdom 
of  God,  He  was  before  a?l  w^orlds.  Thus  also  as  He 
is  Christ,  He  is  one  and  the  same  in  substance  (outJior); 
even  if  He  be  thought  of  under  many  conceptions." 

Most  Protestant  readers  would  need  to  be  told 
that  there  is  anything  Origenistic  about  the  theology 
of  these  extracts.  Any  of  the  Puritan  divines  reply- 
ing to  the  Socinians  would  speak  as  did  these  Pales- 
tinian bishops  in  opposition  to  the  Monarchianism  of 

'As  John  i.  3;  Prov.  viii.  30;  Col.  i.    16. 

-  f.Tti6rrfi.iT]'i  (XvvTCo6Tcirov. 

•*  Quoting  many  passat^es  from  the  Old  Testament. 


ike  Hide  of  Faith  and  Doijma. 


337 


1 11 


1  cre- 
and 
that 
ness 
iige- 
they 

sdoni 
lie 

11 


'ales- 
^in  of 


Paul  of  Samosata.  About  the  only  term  that  reminds 
us  of  Origen  is  the  word  vTroardan  ai)itlit'd  to  Christ; 
but  that  was  u.«ed  in  reference  to  llim  in  the  New 
Testament  (lleb.  i.  .'»),  and  it  was  iutroduee<l  here  to 
express  the  real  personal  existence  of  the  Son  with 
the  Father.  Of  course  there  is  a  more  developed 
Christolooy  in  this  Creed  than  in  those  of  Irenueus 
and  Origen;  but  there  is  not  more  of  the  Divine 
Christ  in  it  than  we  found  in  tlie  general  teachings  of 
Justin  and  all  his  successors,  who  claimed  to  voice  the 
consciousness  of  the  Church.  The  only  difference  is 
that  the  fuller  belief  of  Christians  is  here  put  within 
the  Rule  of  Faith,  and  that  what  all  felt  to  be  in- 
volved in  the  Deity  of  the  Lord  is  now  set  forth  in 
terms  drawn,  as  far  as  was  felt  necessary,  from  Greek 
philosophy.  Surely  to  unfold  truth  and  show  what  it 
necessarily  implies  is  not — as  the  school  of  Kitschl 
L.^em  to  think — to  create  a  doctrine,  Ijut  to  explain  it. 
These  bishops  of  the  third  century  were  bound  by  a 
threefold  cord  to  the  conservative  teachings  of  primi- 
tive Christianity;  they  held  the  baptismal  Rule  of 
Faith,  and  would  admit  nothing  -which  was  contrary 
to  it;  they  accepted  the  New  Testament  Canon  and 
made  it  not  only  an  enlarger  t)f  their  knowledge  Init 
a  test  of  it;  and  they  looked  upon  the  office  of  bishop 
as  making  its  occupant  a  guardian  and  transmitter  of 
ancient  Apostolic  doctrines. 

Alexander  charcjes  Arius '  above  all  with  "  iscnor- 
ing  altogether  the  passages "  of  Scripture  which 
taught  the  Divinity  of  Christ;  and  then  declared  that 

J  In  his  Encyclical,  cf.  Socrates,  History,  i.  15;  and  espe- 
cially in  his  Epistle  to  Alexander  of  Constantinople,  Theodoret, 
History,  i.  4.     lie   says  Arian   errors  *'were  chiefly  founded 


338 


Tlie  Nicene  Chrisiology 


I' I 
'it ' 


•>' 


^\ 


]' 


n\ 


fl    !* 


ii; 


for  the  Apostolic  doctrines  Christians  were  ready  to 
die.  It  was  this  devotion  to  primitive  teachings,  how- 
ever, that  forced  these  Fathers  into  theological  discus- 
sion ;  for  they  could  not  surrender  Bible  truth ;  but 
they  did  believ^e  it  capable  of  development  and  rela- 
tivity to  all  other  truths;  hence  cheir  constant  readi- 
ness to  enlarge  their  articles  of  faith  to  show  that  all 
knowledge  could  have  a  connection  with  the  fullness 
of  the  Godhead  in  Christ.  There  is  no  doubt,  as  we 
saw  in  the  theology  of  the  early  Alexandrian  school,  but 
that  in  the  first  attempts  to  relate  Christianity  to  phi- 
losophy and  faith  to  knowledge,  Christ  and  His  work 
were  not  always  kept  in  their  absolutely  central  and 
exclusive  place;  but  it  is  also  to  be  rememl)ered  that 
wht:n  we  pass  to  the  Nicene  teachers  we  meet  at  once 
a  criticism,  a  correction  and  a  limitation  of  the  theol- 
ogy of  Origen.  Harnack  uses  the  very  suggestive 
word  "  reduction  "to  describe  the  limitations  which 
Atliunasius  set  to  discussions  about  Christ,  and  his 
successful  effort  to  put  the  Consubstantial  Christ  upon 
the  thronv*  as  Saviour  of  sinners  rather  than  as  Kuler 
of  the  Universe. 

We  now  come  to  the  Council  of  Nicaea  and  are 
prepared  to  see  what  is  meant  by  the  statement  that 
the  growing  Christology  of  the  Confessions  of  Faith 
received  here  the  stamp  of  Dogma.  This  first  general 
Council  was  cer^^ainly  epoch-making.  It  was  called 
l)y  the  Emperor;  it  spoke  for  many  lands;  its  Creed 
was  authoritative;  and  what  it  declared  true,  Constan- 

upon  a  perverse  interpretation  of  tliose  passages  of  Scripture, 
wliich  concerned  the  state  of  Christ's  humiliation,  and  upon  an 
impious  antipathy  to  those  which  prove  Ilia  Divinity  and  equal- 
ity with  the  Father." 


1     ^     V. 


"■■■ 


the  Mule  of  Faith  and  Dogma. 


339 


.  are 
that 
[Faith 
eral 
lied 
ICreed 
iistan- 


ja 


[ipture, 

l)on  an 

equal- 


tine  was  ready  to  enforce  with  civil  penalties.  But 
these  changed  relations  did  not  mould  the  decisions  of 
the  Nicene  theologians.  Men  of  all  creeds  and  of  ro 
creed  are  now  about  unanimous  in  the  belief  that 
Athanasius  Vvas  right  and  Arius  was  wrong  in  claim- 
ing to  speak  for  historical  Chrii^tianity.  *  We  saw 
that  Origen  had  brought  Christology  to  the  phice  of 
Homoousian  Hypostasianism,  but  with  the  element  of 
Subordination  connected  w^ith  it.  Now  Arianism,  as 
Pfleiderer  says,  ^  in  leading  Christianity  back  into  pa- 
ganism and  Judaism^  by  deifying  a  creature,  thus  abol- 
ishing the  unity  of  God,  and  by  making  the  union  of 
man  and  God  impossible  through  the  intrusion  of  a 
third  being  who  is  neither  God  nor  man,  brouglit  the 
Nicene  Fatners  with  practical  unanimity  to  see  that 

^  Cf.  the  opinions  of  Matthew  Arnold,  Carlyle,  Renan  and 
others,  in  Gore,  Barapton  Lectures,  p.  100,  and  Stanley, 
Christ.  Institutions,  London,  1882,  p.  273.  Professor  J.  H. 
Allen,  a  Unitarian,  says  (Unitariati  lieview,  Sept.  1887)  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity  was  not  a  mere  "corruption  "  of  Chris- 
tianity, "but  a  development  out  of  conditijns  and  demands  of 
the  soul  fundamentally  religious."  Athanasius,  we  are  told, 
was  nearer  modern  theology  than  Arius  with  his  pagan  logic. 
Unitarians,  Allen  adds,  must  make  great  concessions,  because 
they  now  see  God  in  humanity  in  a  way  very  much  as  Athan- 
asius saw  God  in  Christ.  Pfleiderer  takes  the  same  view 
(1.  c.  IL  284f.).  John  Stuart  Mill  says  (in  Stanley,  I.e.): 
"It  is  the  God  incarnate,  more  than  the  God  of  the  Jews  or  of 
Nature,  who  being  idealized,  has  taken  so  great  and  salutary 
a  hold  on  the  modern  mind." 

2  1.  c.  IL  282;  cf.  Ilarnack,  11.  218. 

3  This  was  also  the  criticism  of  Athanasius,  and  Eusebin^, 
who  {Demonstrat.  Eimtigel.,  in  (rallandi's  Bibliotheca  Patrum, 
Venice,  1788,  IV.  p.  404)  declared  that  true  "Christianity  is 
neither  Hellenism  nor  Judaism." 


m 


11 


r". 


t;^'. 


Ik 


mt 


■ 


340 


The  Nicene  Christology 


Christ  as  Divine  Redeemer  must  be  fully  equal 
with  God;  for  none  but  God  could  give  the  perfect 
Revelation  of  Jehovah  which  Jesus  brought.  *  Alex- 
ander of  Alexandria  said  of  Christ:  "In  this  alone 
is  He  inferior  to  the  Father,  that  he  is  not  un- 
bejyotten."^  Athanasius  also  admitted  the  subordi- 
nation  of  the  Son,  but  only  in  His  humanity,  only  in 
His  voluntary  self -emptying  of  Himself;  in  respect  of 
His  Divinity  He  is  consubstantial  with  the  Father, 
equal  in  power  and  glory.  The  Council  of  Nicjiea  ex- 
pressed this  doctrine  by  the  terms  fwvoyEvr)?,  rovrd^rtv 

hi  TT/i  ov6ia?  Tov  IJarpo?,  Oeoi  ek  Qeov,  6/.ioov6ioi  rep  narpi;  and 

summed  uj)  His  work  in  Creation,  Incarnation,  and 

1  Gwatkin  gives  the  following  striking  criticism  of  Arianisni 
{I.  c.  p.  264):  It  "was  an  illogical  coraproniise.  It  went  too 
far  for  heathenism,  not  far  enough  for  Christianity.  It  con- 
ceded Christian  worship  to  the  Lord,  though  it  made  him  no 
better  than  a  heathen  demigod.  As  a  scheme  of  Christianity  it 
was  overmatched  at  every  point  by  the  Nicene  doctrine;  as  a 
concession  to  heathenism  it  was  outbid  by  the  growing  worship 
of  saints  and  relics.  Debasing  as  was  the  error  of  turning 
saints  into  demigods,  it  seems  to  have  shocked  Christian  feel- 
ing less  than  tiie  Avian  audacity  which  degraded  the  Lord  of 
Saints  to  the  level  of  His  creatures."  He  says  Arianism  failed 
especially  Ijccause  of  the  incurable  badness  of  its  method.  Its 
doctrine  was  "on  one  side  a  mass  of  presumptuous  theorizing, 
supported  by  altornata  scraps  of  obsolete  traditionalism  and  un- 
critical text-mongering;  on  the  other,  it  was  a  lifeless  system  of 
uuspiritual  pride  and  hard  unlovingness."  Opposed  to  all  this 
was  Athanasius  whose  work  was  "a  faithful  search  for  truth" 
from  all  sources — Nature,  Bible,  Man,  Philosophy.  "  In 
breadth  of  view  as  well  as  grasp  of  doctrine  he  is  beyond  com- 
parison with  the  rabble  of  controversialists  who  cursed  or  still 
invoke  his  name"  (p.  266). 

'^  In  the  Epistle  named  above.  He  quotes  Ileb.  i.  3  for  his 
authority,  as  well  as  other  passages. 


the  liule  of  Faith  and  Dogma. 


341 


un- 
111  of 

this 
ith" 
"In 
3om- 

still 

his 


Redemption,  tlirongli  suffering,  resurrection,  ascension, 
and  coming  again  to  judge  the  world. 

Now  the  first  impression  which  one  receives  on 
reading  this  brief  Creed  is  that  it  is  simply  the  primi- 
tive Rule  of  Faith  with  two  or  three  theolocfical  terms 
introduced  to  shut  out  Arianism.  The  words,  "  God 
of  God  Light  of  Light,"  remind  us  of  Origen  and 
Gregory  Thauniaturgus;  but  only  in  the  terms,  "of 
the  substance  of  the  Father"  and  " consubstantial," 
do  we  meet  the  language  of  philosophy;'  and  these 
Athanasius  defended'^  on  the  ground  that  the  Church 
was  flgliting  a  frivolous  speculation  in  Arianism,  and 
must  employ  the  language  of  dialectics  to  do  so.' 
It  was  a  battle  for  life  and  death  to  save  Christianity 

^  Newman  says  {^Grammar  of  Assent,  p.  138,  in  Fisher's 
History  of  Chr.  Doctrine,  New  York,  189C,  p.  32)  that  the  use 
of  the  term  "  consubstautial  "  by  the  Nicene  Council  is  "  the  one 
instance  of  a  scientific  word  having  been  introduced  into  the 
Creed  from  that  day  to  this."  A  third  plirase,  "  begotten  not 
made,"  was  questioned  by  Eusebius  of  Ciesarea,  in  addition  to 
the  two  already  referred  to;  hence  we  may  regard  these  three 
terms,  "substance,"  "consubstautial,"  and  "l)egotten,"  as  the 
theological  words  introduced  at  Nicjca  into  the  Creed  of 
Ciesarea,  to  make  it  a  defense  against  Arianism.  The  Creed  of 
Caisarea,  which  was  thus  given  a  dogmatic  stamp  at  Nicasa, 
had  been  long  in  use  and  went  far  back  into  the  third  century. 
Its  venerable  character,  its  orthodoxy,  and  the  great  learning  of 
Eusebius,  bishop  of  Caisarea  who  offered  it,  led  the  Fathers  to 
take  it  as  the  basis  of  their  Confession  of  Faith. 

-    De  Synod.  Ar.  xlvi;  cf.  TerluUia.;,  Adr.  Piitx.  vii. 

8  We  may  notice,  also,  that  Aphrahat,  who  was  born  A.  D, 
280,  and  wrote  in  Persia,  far  from  Greek  j»hilosophic  intluences, 
calls  Jesus  "our  Lord,  God,  Son  of  God  .  .  ,  ,  Light  of 
Light,"  etc.  Cf.  German  translation  of  his  Homilies,  by  Bert. 
Leipzig,  1888,  S,  280. 


I 


;;  -1 1 


111 


Ik 

i.!t| 


ri;| 


' 


1;' 


m: 


342 


7'Ae  iV«ce?ie  Christolo(j>/ 


from  polytheism,  from  worship  of  a  creature;  it 
was  also  a  fight  to  save  even  Theism,  for  if  the 
creature  Ciiiist  of  Arius  were  adored,  Christianity 
would  sink  1)elowthe  level  of  even  educated  heathen- 
ism, which  believed  in  one  Supreme  Being.  The 
burning  focus  of  this  whole  controversy  and  of  all 
historical  criticism  of  it  is  the  Incarnation  of  Christ. 
If  that  be  accepted  all  questions  about  Hellenism  in 
thought  or  language  are  easily  answered.  If  Jesus 
is  God  in  the  flesh,  then  all  the  antithe&es  which  the 
school  of  Ritschl  set  forth  between  the  cosmological 
and  soteriological  Christ  dissolve  into  happy  har- 
mony. Kaftan  frankly  admits  that  Christianity  so 
tran:-formed  the  philosophical  elements  which  it  ab- 
sorbed that  it  reached  dogmatically  the  true  Bible 
position  " that  the  lather  created  the  world  through 
the  Son."  ^     The  Nicene  Fathers  did  not  know  that 

1  Ztft.f.  Theol  u.  Kirche,  1893,  11.  6,  S.  442.  He  says 
the  history  of  doctrine  is  "a  progressive  elimination  and  trans- 
formation of  the  original  philosophical  elements  in  a  Christian 
sense";  and  "  a  glance  at  the  development  of  the  doctriu'is  of 
the  Trinity  and  Christology  shows  this."  Cosmological  specu- 
lations were  more  and  more  left  out.  Overbeck,  a  radit.-al 
critic,  takes  the  same  position  (cf.  Ueber  die  Chrintiichkeit 
tniserer  hexitUjen  Theologcn,  Leipzig,  1873,  S.  7).  He  shows 
that  from  Origen  on,  knowledge  in  religion  was  more  and  more 
pushed  back  by  faith,  in  the  teachings  of  the  Church,  seeking 
the  true  balance  of  both.  This  re'^ult,  he  says,  was  not  a  mix- 
ing of  heterogeneous  elements,  as  the  followers  of  Ritschl  con- 
tend. 

In  this  view  Sohm,  a  conservative  theologian,  heartily  con- 
curs. He  says  (S  39)  of  post-Nicene  controversy:  "The 
fundamental  direction  of  the  Church  faith  moved  on  unconfused 
by  Greek  rejection,"  for  "the  divinity  of  Christ  had  from  the 
beginning  constituted  the  faith  and  hope  of  the  Church."     At 


the  Rule  of  Faith  and  Do<jma. 


343 


that 

e  says 

traus- 

iristian 

IllifiS  of 

specu- 

Iradiual 

'ichkeit 

shows 

i  more 

[eeking 

a  niix- 

1  cou- 

con- 

"The 

lufused 

)m  the 

At 


cosmology  was  foreign  to  the  Divine  Christ,  for  they 
put  His  creative  work  in  their  Creed  just  as  they 
found  it  described  in  the  Scriptures  (Eph.  i.  10). 
With  Paul  and  John,  they  felt  that  He  who  was  over 
all,  God  blessed  forever,  must  be  the  Head  of  the 
Church ;  by  Him  the  worlds  must  have  been  framed, 
as  well  as  salvation  mediated;  and  all  things  in 
heaven  and  on  eartl.  'uust  be  summed  uj)  in  Him. 
llitschl  says  Christ's  calling  consisted  in  His  adopting 
as  His  end,  the  end  of  God  in  Creation  and  Providence.' 
The  Nicene  theology,  believing  in  the  Incarnation, 
took  the  higher  view  that  the  aim  of  God  was  the 
aim  of  Christ,  because  Pie  and  the  Father  were  one. 
But  above  all  else  it  was  the  practical  considera- 
tion of  man's  salvation  that  led  the  Nicene  Fathers  to 
use  Bible,  philosophy,  Christian  experience.  Church 
tradition,  and  every  other  source  of  religious  know- 
ledge to  defend  the  doctrine  of  the  Divine  Christ. 
Unless  the  Redeemer  were  perfect  God  and  perfect 
man  he  could  not  be  the  Savior  ever  set  forth  in  the 

Nicfea,  non-Christian  Greek  thought  -was  driven  out  of  Chris- 
tian teachings.  Sohni  concludes:  "While  salvation  through 
Christ  was  made  the  central  point  of  theological  thought  with- 
out turning  Christianity  into  i)hilosophy,  the  subject-matter 
of  Christianity — that  true  and  eternal  content,  which  brings 
comfort  and  deliverance,  and  which  belongs  to  Christianity  as 
a  religion — was  comprehended  as  a  matter  of  science,  and  at  the 
same  time  was  set  in  full  light  as  the  revelation  of  the  acts  '^f 
grace  wrought  by  God  for  sinful  humanity.  In  this  sense  the 
Nicene  Confession  was  the  regeneration  of  the  gospel  and  there- 
by the  firm  foundation  of  the  whole  future  development  of  the 
Church"  (Engl.  Translation,  Macmillan  &  Co.,  New  York, 
1895,  p.  50). 

1  l/nterric/a,  20;  i?.  n.    V.  iii.  428. 


1  i"  1 


I 


l.'A 


I  ^ 

:;!.' 


'i5 


'ill 

mi  4  'I 
jii   in 


Si'  >l     '       ' 


344 


77*6  JVicene  Christology 


gospel  and  believed  on  in  the  Church.  In  I'eaching 
these  conclusions  it  was  taken  for  granted  that  the 
mind  of  the  Church  found  in  them  the  fullest  expres- 
sion. There  were  bishops  present  at  Niciea  from 
Egypt,  Asia  Minor,  Palestine,  Pannonia,  North 
Africa,  Italy  and  Spain,  besides  over  a  thousand  pres- 
byters, deacons  and  private  Christians.^  Athanasius 
and  other  leaders  ever  appealed  to  the  consciousness 
of  the  Church ;  and  professed  in  their  Creed  to  teach 
nothing  l>ut  what  had  ever  been  held  by  Christians. 
Arianisni,  as  all  other  heresy,  was  fought  as  an  inno- 
vation. Hence  the  statement  of  Hatch  that  the  Coun- 
cil of  Nictiea  led  the  w^ay  in  deciding  what  was  Chris- 
tian docti'ine  "  l)y  the  majority  at  a  meeting "  of 
"  Church  officers  assembled  under  certain  conditions," 
(p.  331)  is  misleading.-  ■''Athanasius  contra  man- 
dum''''  for  forty  years  refused  to  regard  majority  votis 
of  synods  as  the  voice  of  God.  After  half  a  century 
of  discussion  the  Nicene  theology  was  reaffirmed  at 
Constantinople  (381),  and  in  the  next  century  at 
Chalcedon.  These  decisions  were  practically  unani- 
mous, for  they  said  just  ^vhat  "the  Great  Church"^ 

1  Of.  Ilefele,  Councils,  Engl.  Tr.  I.  2V0f 

2  Elaborate  doctrines  about  the  Divine  Christ  w^re  not  the 
.esult  of  great  councils.  In  fact  it  was  the  various  churches 
all  through  the  East  tliat  unanimously  formulated  statements 
against  false  teachings  as  they  arose.  The  "■old  oriental  baptis- 
mal confessions  contain  without  any  exception  anti-heretical  ad- 
ditions "  (Caspari,  iii.  3f.).  At  Nictva,  Constantinople  and 
(Chalcedon  only  a  minimum,  and  that  rather  negatively  and  de- 
fensively, was  expressed  of  the  theology  set  forth  in  much 
greater  fullness  in  baptismal  creeds  and  pulpit  teachings. 

3  So  Celsus  termed  it.  Cf.  Origen,  Cont.  Ceistmi,  v.  59; 
and  Keim,  Celsus'  Wahres  Worf,  Zurich,  1873,  S.  222. 


the  Rule  of  Faith  and  Dogma. 


345 


, " 


11 


Inot  the 
Inirchcs 
tenieiits 
|l)ai)tis- 
lical  ad- 
)le  and 
ind  de- 
much 

V.  59; 


had  always  thought.  There  was  "  a  corporate  con- 
sciousness "^  expressed  in  Ignatius  as  well  as  in 
Atlianasius,  in  Irenaeus  as  well  as  in  Gregory  of 
Nyssa,  which  was  ever  true  to  the  Divine  Redeemer. 
It  x.as  this  corporate  consciousness  that  rejected  Gnos- 
ticism, Ebionitism,  Monarchianisra,  Arianism.  It 
was  this  Spirit  of  Christ  in  the  Church,  which  Ilar- 
nack  and  his  school  quite  ignore,  that  produced  the 
calm,  serene,  well-balanced  teachings  of  the  Nicene 
Creed  in  an  age  of  discord  and  excitement.  "  I  know 
that  this  Creed  closes  with  "anathema"  aerainst  those 
v/ho  denied  the  Eternal  Christ  or  who  said  He  Avas  of 
"  another  hypostasis  or  of  another  substance  (than  the 
Father),"  or  that  He  was  mutable;  Init  I  also  know 
that  the  second  great  Council,  or  the  Creed  called  after 
it,  omitted  the  anathemas;  and  if  this  liad  not  been 
done,  those  Fathers  could  appeal  to  New  Testament 
authority  for  such  strong  condemnation  of  opponents  of 
the  Divine  Christ.  The  only  anathema  that  Paul 
knew  was  that  of  separation  from  Christ  and  His 
gospel.^  And  what  is  true  of  this  matter  is  true 
of  the  whole  contents  of  the  Creed.  It  lias  l)een 
bitterly  assailed,  and  the  theology  which  led  u})  to  it 
and  grew  out  of  it,  as  a  corruption  of  primitive  Chris- 
tianity by  Greek  philosophy.     But  1  have  not  yet  met 

1  As  Saiiday  well  styles  it,  in  Gore,  1.  c.  p.  3. 

2  It  is  worthy  of  mention  that  Eusebius,  the  great  historian 
of  the  Nicene  Age,  who  lived  tlirongh  its  controversies,  in 
his  Preparatio,  his  Demonst.  Evangel. ,  and  elsewhere,  especially 
dwells  upon  the  circle  of  thought  which  we  call  "  God  in  His- 
tory." Cf.  Lightfoot's  article  on  Eusebius,  in  Diet,  of  ChriM. 
Bio<iraphy^  ii.  pp.  324,  346. 

3  Rom.  ix.  3;  I  Cor.  xii.  3;  xvi.  22. 


i 


|! 

I  Vr 


ir 


t 


iff 


;l:!i:, 


11 


Ii: 


346 


The  N'icene  Christoloffif 


m 


with  a  serious  attempt  to  show  what  iu  it  cannot  be 
clearly  deduced  from  New  Testament  teachings  and 
must  be  drawn  from  Hellenism.  The  significant 
terms  applied  to  Christ  in  this  first  dogmatic  state- 
ment, "only  begotten,"  "God,"  "true  God,"  .ire 
borrowed  from  the  Scriptures.  We  saw  in  the  fii'st 
lecture  that  the  consciousness  of  Christ  and  the 
understanding  of  the  Apostles  regarded  these  terms  as 
of  absolute  and  infinite  worth.  *  I  refer  to  the 
Scriptures  now  only  as  a  test  of  the  historical  value 
of  the  Nicene  Creed.  The  school  of  Ritschl  hold, 
with  slight  limitations,  that  nothing  that  is  Biblical 
belongs  as  a  doctrine  to  Christianity,  nothing  that  is 
historical  belongs  as  a  development  to  Christianity, 
and  nothing  that  is  philosophical  or  theoretical  be- 
longs as  an  explanation  to  Christianity. 

What,  then,  is  left  as  a  test  of  Hellenic  and  Chris- 
tian elements  in  Nicene  beliefs  ?  Hatch  says  primitive 
Christianity  was  a  "way  of  life,"  a  "simple  trust  in 
God"  (p.  330),  and  "simple  acceptance  of  the  propo- 
sition that  Jesus  Christ  was  His  Son."  The  whole 
school  of  Ritschl  say  the  same  thing;  all  beyond  this 
is  declared  to  be  a  product  of  evil,  of  Hellenism. 
Hatch  utterly  ignores  the  teachings  of  Christ  not  found 
in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,^  and  all  the  exposition  of 


'U 


^  See,  further,  Gore,  p.  96ff. 

2  But  to  set  up  the  ethics  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  as  a 
test  of  what  is  Christianity,  Liiclerraann  says  {Th.  Jahresberlcht, 
xi.  S.  140),  is  to  apply  a  standard  "absolutely  unsuited  to  pro- 
duce a  just  separation  between  Hellenic  form  and  generic  Chris- 
tian contents  in  the  products  of  Catholic  Christian  development." 
Still  further,  this  position  of  Hatch,  making  Christianity  Moral- 
ism,  and  our  Christology  Hellenism,    really   lands   us   in   the 


I'l  '■• . 


s^ 


the  Mule  of  Faith  and  Dogma. 


347 


It  as  a 

|to  pro- 
1  Chris- 
lent." 
iMoral- 
lin   the 


the  gospel  by  Peter,  James,  Paul  and  John.  Harnack 
claims  to  find  true  Christianity  in  the  "common  Chris- 
tian proclamation "  of  the  gospel  in  the  circles 
about  Jesus;   but  Loofs,  one  of   his  disciples,  at  once 

domain  of  Ratioualium.  Liidormaiin  continues  {^Thcohxj.  Jnhrcs- 
herkht,  xii.  S.  159):  "  Tlie  i)oint  of  view  from  which  he  offers 
bis  astounding  opinions  upon  the  origin  and  religious  contents 
of  the  old  dogma,  transports  us  l»y  its  absolute,  religio-i)hilo- 
sophical  simplicity  {^Nainetiit)  and  its  one-sided  moralism,  far 
back  jiast  Schleiermacher  into  the  times  of  the  first  rationalistic 
beginnings  of  the  history  of  doctrine;  only  that  Ihc  author's  con- 
stant Quaker-like  regret  over  the  decay  of  the  primitive  Chris- 
tianity of  the  Didache  and  the  "  Apostolic  Constitutions"  I-II, 
with  prophecy,  etc.,  as  well  as  his  complete  ignoring  of  Paulin- 
ism,  betrays  a  further  progress,  which  can  scarcely  be  consid- 
ered as  any  advance  upon  Rationalism."  It  is  this  narrowness, 
this  rejection  of  God-consciousness,  and  world-consciousness  as 
part  of  religion,  which  we  must  oppose  with  both  Bible  and 
reason.  To  be  left  with  only  self-consciousness  and  Church- 
consciousness  as  the  basis  of  religion,  is  to  be  left  a  prey  to 
both  rationalism  and  superstition.  Nippold  [Stud.  u.  JCrit.  1882, 
li.  2\Jahrb.  f.  Prot.  Th.  1888,  H.  1,  and  Geschichte  der  dentsch. 
Theologie,  S.  454)  shows,  against  Kitschl  (1)  that  a  mystic  ele- 
ment is  just  as  indispensable  in  the  Church  as  a  rational  element, 
and  (2)  that  the  thrusting  in  of  the  Church  between  the  Re- 
deemer and  the  redeemed  is  unprotestant  and  must  be  rejected. 
Ileuce  Lipsius  says  {Die  liitschl.  Theohxjii',  S.  L'8),  that  all 
parties  must  accept  what  is  true  in  Ritschl's  system,  but 
combine  it  "  with  the  demands  of  scientific  knowledge  of  the 
universe,  on  the  one  hand,  and  with  the  utterances  of  Cliristian 
mysticism  on  the  other,  into  a  more  intimate  union  than  ever." 
Even  the  Ritschl  men  lind  it  impossil)le  to  avoid  what  they  call 
Mysticism.  This  finds  characteristic  expression  in  a  recent  ser- 
mon by  Loofs.  {Das  Apos tali k tan,  in  drei  .  .  .  Prcdigten.  Halle. 
1895,  S.  23f.).  He  says  we  must  all  join  in  the  confession  of 
Thomas,  "My  Lord  and  my  God."  This  expresses  our  con- 
viction  "  that  we  do  not  fall  into  the  deilicatiou  of   man  or 


ir-" 


Hi 


I 


n. 


"'n    ■ 


S 


;1,         )     , 


i 


348 


TJic  N'lcane  Chr'istohujy 


i 

'r' 


ti 


VX- 


m 


'f ' 


replies^  that  such  a  proclamation  cannot  be  separated 
from  the  Gospels  of  the  Apostolic  men  who  both  report 
Christ's  teachings  and  expound  them.  Hatch  else- 
where admits  that  from  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  and 
the  Canonical  Epistles  "  a  mosaic  *"  of  doctrine  may  lie 
put  together,  but,  without  pretending  to  compare  this 
with  the  theology  of  Niciea,  he  flies  to  the  little  tract 
called  the  Didache^  and  with  its  few  moral  precei)ts 
sweeps  Peter  and  John  out  of  existence.  ITarnack 
treats  Paul  in  the  same  cavalier  fashion.  He  does 
recognize  t/nosis  in  the  Apostle's  words,  but  says  it 
was  not  absolutely  identified  with  the  gospel.  Now 
such  an  ignoring  of  New  Testament  theology  I  hold  to 
be  fatal  in  the  premises.  These  very  scholars,  Ilarnack 
and  Hatch,  inform  us  that  the  two  great  transitions  of 
the  gospel  took  place  as  it  passed  from  Christ  to  the 

'hero  worship,'  but  are  certain  that  iu  the  man  Jesus  Christ  the 
Almighty  God  has  revealed  Himself  as  a  King,  as  one  who  sends 
his  heir  to  represent  his  father."  We  call  Him  "My  God," 
but  that  is  not  to  worship  other  gods.  He  then  continues,  re- 
specting the  relation  of  Christ  to  the  Father:  "This  much  we 
can  know — it  is  an  art  of  Christian  faith,  an  art,  I  suy,  to  join 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  with  the  Father  in  heaven,  to  regard  tht*ni 
as  One;  if  I  may  so  say,  to  see  the  Father  in  Ilim  and  Him  in 
the  Father  (cf.  John  xiv.  11.).  He  who  wishes  to  speculate 
further  may  do  so,  but  faith  does  not  consist  in  such  things  and 
does  not  tend  to  destroy  itself  in  such  things."  The  religious 
view  of  the  Divine  Christ  is  an  art!  A  pious  piece  of  self- 
deception  is  the  basis  of  our  hope  of  salvation!  The  Kedeemer 
is  but  a  picture  thrown  by  the  magic  lantern  of  devout  imagi- 
nation against  the  bosom  of  God  and  bv  such  art  regarded  as  so 
one  with  the  Father,  that  "faith  in  Christ  "  is  "  trust  in  God  " 
— that  is  the  scientific  Christology  which  is  to  free  us  from  the 
absurdities  of  Hellenism! 

1  J).  Emng.  Blatter,  xi.  183f. 


f  !:^  i  i 


the  Mule  of  Faltli  u}ul  Doijma. 


340 


first  generation  of  believers  including  Paul,  and  from 
these  Jewish  believers  to  the  Gentile  world.  And  yet 
they  pass  carefully  i  ound  the  Apostolic  men  in  seek- 
ing the  priiwitive  gospel,  though  every  rill  of  early 
Christianity  flowed  from  Christ  through  them.  Tlie 
result  is  that  each  of  these  critics  makes  his  own  test 
of  what  is  Christian  in  tlieNicene  creed,  lla,  iiack,  in 
the  most  arbitrary  way,  takes  a  verse  from  the  Fourth 
GospeP  (xvii.  21)  and  combines  it  with  a  verse  or  two 
from  Paul  to  get  a  true  conception  of  the  gospel  and 
a  standard  for  rejecting  all  theology  from  Christianity. 
And  then  ho  utterly  ignores  the  teachings  of  this  same 
John  (viii.  58;  xvii.  8)  and  Paul  (Phil.  ii.  5  f. )  else- 
where, who  offer  as  their  test  of  true  Christianity  the 
Divine  Christ,  always  with  the  Father,  and  God  over 
all  blessed  forever.  Only  by  such  treatment  -'f  the 
New  Testament  can  Hatch  reach  the  strange  result 
that  all  in  Christianity  beyond  trust  in  God  is  "spec- 
ulations of  a  majority  at  certain  meetings." 

Kaftan  sees  that  the  Nicene  Creed  cannot  be  shown 
to  contain  anything  non-Biblical  in  its  contents,  but 
he  says  the  Scriptures  contain  it  "  as  revelations  of 
God  in  history,  not  as  dogma";-  and  we  must  see  it 

1  II  Cor.  V.  17;  Gal.  ii.  20;  cf.  I.  133,  Engl.  Trans.  Loofs 
(S.  1^5)  says  the  verses  that  Ilaruack  chooses  as  e-ontaining  true 
Christianity  are  Rom.  viii.  28  and  John  xvii.  21.  Yet  strange 
to  say,  Ilarnack  does  not  regard  the  Fourth  (Josj)el,  from  wliich 
his  second  text  is  taken,  as  of  Ai>ostolic  origin,  while  his  first 
is  from  Paul  who  never  had  a  "  personal  impression  "  of  Christ 
as  the  first  eye-witnesses  had,  and  whose  theology  is  suj)posed 
by  Harnack  himself  to  be  colored  by  llabbinism,  if  not  also  by 
Hellenism! 

2  Ztft.  f.  Th.  u.  Jurchc,  1803,  II.  6,  S.  4G4.  Ilarnack  in- 
sists  more   than  ever  in  the  tliird  edition  of  his  "History  of 


w 


w 


! 


i  \\- 


III 


350 


77ie  Nicene  Chridology 


with  eyes  of  evangelical  faith  and  not  with  eyes  of 
dogma.  Here  is  a  further  attempt  to  e«ca[)e  from  the 
doctrine  of  the  Divine  Christ  by  giving  Him  only  the 
religious  value  of  God.  In  order  to  do  so,  both  Bible 
facts  and  Bible  doctrines  must  be  rejected  from  the 
contents  of  faith;  and  of  course  this  process  of  cleav- 
ing the  Bible  asunder  is  everywhere  pursued  in  the 

Dograa  "  upon  the  decisiveness  of  the  words  "  on  the  soil  of  the 
gospel  "  as  part  of  his  definition  of  dogma  as  "a  work  of  the 
Greek  spirit  on  the  soil  of  the  gospel  "  (English  translation, 
1895,  I.  ]».  21).  He  says  "the  foolishness  of  ide'uifying 
dogma  and  Greek  philosophy  never  entered  my  mind;  on  the 
contrary,  the  peculiarity  of  ecclesiastical  dogma  seemed  to  me 
to  lie  in  the  fact,  that,  on  the  one  hand,  it  gave  expression  to 
Christian  Monotheism  and  the  central  significance  of  the  Person 
of  Christ,  and  oi^  the  other  hand,  comi)rehended  this  religious 
faith  and  the  historical  knowledge  connected  with  it  in  a  jihilo- 
sophic  system."  Little  objection  can  be  made  to  this  state- 
ment; and  none  to  the  remark  which  follows,  that  "  Christian- 
ity without  dogma,  that  is,  without  a  clear  expression  of  its 
content,  is  inconceivable."  What  he  objects  to  is  "the  un- 
changeable ])ermanent  significance  of  that  dogma  which  has 
once  been  formed  under  deiinite  historical  conditions  "  (p.  23). 
That  is,  his  '  *  criticism  refers  not  to  the  general  genus  dogma, 
but  to  the  species,  viz.,  the  defined  dogma,  as  it  was  formed  on 
the  soil  of  the  ancient  world."  The  only  question  then  is: 
Does  the  Nicene  theology  truly  represent  the  contents  of  Chris- 
tianity so  far  as  it  goes?  Elsewhere,  however,  Ilarnack  for- 
gets this  recognition  of  true  dogma,  and  says:  "The  Reforma- 
tion, that  is  the  conception  of  evangelical  faith  abolishes 
dogma"  (III.  58(5).  lie  here  identities  all  dogma  with  that  of 
Nicjea  and,  as  Kriiger  HAyn  {Dof/menf/esckichte,  S.  13),  "shriv- 
els up  his  genus  into  a  species  "  to  get  rid  of  dogma  altogether. 
Here  again  the  des})erate  attempt  to  keep  belief  and  knowledge 
apart  tangles  up  the  critic,  as  it  does  every  man  who  tries  to 
carry  out  Ritschl's  inconsistent  theory  of  knowledge. 


m. 


logy 


the  Hale  of  Faith  (Did  Dogma. 


351 


es  of 
1  the 

y  *^i® 
Bible 

n  the 

jleav- 

n  the 


^ries  to 


history  of  doctrine.  Here  we  land  in  great  confusion, 
although  tlio  school  of  Uitschl  have  written  thousands 
ci"  pages  to  ex[)huu  how  a  man  can  believe  in  Christ 
without  making  his  faith  rest  on  the  Bible,  or  history, 
or  theology,  or  creed.'  Everything  human,  we  are 
told,  must  be  stripped  off  to  get  genuine  Christianity. 

1  It  is  sins^ular  that  as  lonu:  as  Uitst'hl  lived  (till  1889)  his 
school  stoutly  <U(f(in»led  tliu  Apostles'  Creed  and  C'lmrch  con- 
fessions. Kitschl,  also,  was  especially  opposeil  to  touching  the 
question  of  the  Prolegomena  to  the  life  of  Jesus,  And  now 
these  two  questions,  of  the  Apostolicum  and  the  IJirth  of  Jesus, 
have  been  thrust  into  prominence  by  his  followers  (cf.  Nippold, 
II.  S.  175).  Ilariiack,  who  was  called  to  a  professorship  in 
Berlin,  by  the  government,  against  the  protest  of  the  Church  of 
I'russia,  has  especially  attacked  the  Apostles'  Creed  ever  held 
by  that  Church.  Kitschl  said,  speaking  of  the  growth  of  Jesus 
into  the  religious  value  of  God:  "  We  must  give  up  all  attempts 
to  explain  it  .  .  .  and  say  how  it  took  jdace  empirically" 
{Theol.  u.  Metapliij.,  S.  29).  The  mystery  of  how  Jesus /ytxv/me 
the  model  child  of  God  is  insoluble;  an<l  yet  lie  is  held  up  to 
us  as  the  exami)le  which  is  to  waken  such  a  shame  of  sin  in  us, 
as  will  make  us  iuiitate  the  perfect  :^hrist!  Well  might  we  say 
in  view  of  this  development  of  Christ,  which  Hermann  adjuits 
has  an  "  undetinable  influence"  in  many  of  its  acts,  with 
doubting  Thomas:  "Lord,  we  know  not  Avhither  Thou  goest, 
and  how  can  v/e  know  the  way?"  Uitschl  left  important  doc- 
trines in  doubt.  Hence  NippoM  says  ((retic/iic/iti',  S.  4 ").■{): 
"Ihere  are  passages  in  Ritschl's  theology,  which,  however 
often  we  iuay  read  them,  always  leave  an  incomjtrehensible 
residuum  behind,  and  that  just  in  questions  where  we  expect 
an  answer  'without  horns  and  teeth.'"  And  this  incompre- 
hensibility and  uncertainty  reach,  as  we  have  seen,  to  tiie  very 
heart  of  the  gosjjel.  The  character  of  Christ  is  made  non- 
essential to  Christianity.  Hence  Schrempf  says  (cf.  Theol. 
Jahresbericht,  1895,  S.  450),  that  the  central  question  of  Chris- 
tianity is  not,  "What  think  ye  of  Christ?"  but,  "  How  does 


siiii 


W' 


352 


27ie  Xicene  Chrktology 


It 

i't- 


m. 


h 


Hellenism  is  liumau,  therefore  off  witli  it.  Hatch 
says  Christianity  should  have  stuck  to  Palestinian 
thought  and  ethics;  but  he  tells  us  a  little  later  that 
Palestinian  thouo;ht  and  ethics  ended  in  the  bojrs  and 
morasses  of  the  Talmud.  Hence  Judaism  as  human 
should  be  stripped  off.  Then  we  reach  Jesus  Himself 
as  the  source  of  our  religion.  But  He,  too,  was  a  man ; 
and  all  that  we  knov/  about  Him  rests  on  human  testi- 
mony. If  Hellenism  and  Judaism  are  to  be  rejected 
from  Christianity  simply  because  historical  and  human, 
why  is  the  one  man  Jesus  the  supreme  exception? 
Facts  and  ideas  cannot  be  kept  out  of  Christianity; 
for  they  cannot  be  kept  out  of  Jesus  Christ.  Herr- 
mann says  we  believe  in  Him  because  we  are  personal 
'witnesses  of  the  Redeemer."  But  no  man  can  be  a 
witness  of  a  human  Christ  who  lived  nineteen  hun- 
dred years  ago,  without  the  aid  of  historical  informa- 
tion. And  this  historical  information  gives  us  also  the 
personal  testimony  of  eye-witnesses  to  Christ  and  full- 
ness of  teachings  about  Hin).  Herrmann  frankly  says 
of  the  resurrection  of  Chridt:  "If  the  Apostle  taught 
that,  I  would  be  obliged  to  think  that  he  was  mis- 
taken.'"^    Here  then  is  flat  contradiction  of  the  testi- 


1  ^ 

h 


\.x. 


one  become  a  true  child  ot  God?  "  which  is  about  as  ■wise  as  for 
a  man  standing  Ijesidc  the  sea  looking  at  a  ship,  to  say:  "The 
central  question  is  not  what  is  the  character  of  that  ship  and  its 
seaworthiness,  bat,  hjw  am  I  to  get  on  board?" 

1  Ztft.f.  TheuL  w.  Kirdie.  1894,  II.  4,  S.  277.  He  con- 
tinues: "For  I  n.ust  follow  the  truth,  and  in  these  thoughts 
there  is  no  truth.'  Here  is  illustrated  afresh  the  vice  of  this 
whole  school;  its  thoi(f//ifs,  its  "judgments  of  value"  can  ad- 
mit or  annihilate  any  fact  or  doctrine  of  the  New  Testament, 
regardless  of  its  historical  suj)port. 


atch 
niaii 
tliat 
and 
iman 
nself 
man ; 
testi- 
ected 
inian, 
)tion  ? 
xnity; 
Ilerr- 
rsonal 
1  be  a 
L  liun- 
'ornia- 
Isotlie 
1  full- 

tauglit 
i«  mis- 

testi- 

|e  as  f  or 

"The 
land  its 

[e  cou- 
koiights 
|of  this 
an  ad- 
Lament, 


the  liule  of  Faith  and  Dogma. 


353 


mony  of  the  school  of  llitschl  by  that  of  the  school  of 
Christ. 

Now  the  Nicene  theologians  had  no  idea,  such  as  is 
here  referred  to,  that  doctrine  and  life,  Ijelief  and 
facts  were  not  inseparably  connected.  Faith  in  Christ 
involved  b"lief  in  the  facts  of  His  life  and  the  truth 
of  His  teachings,  But  the  elements  of  trust  in  Ilim 
as  a  person,  and  confidence  in  the  certainty  of  His 
doctrines  were  not  separated,  or  the  latler  brought  in 
as  a  foreign  substitute  for  the  former  in  any  sucli  way 
as  Hatch,  for  example,  asserts  (Lect.  XL).  All 
teachers  have  laid  stress  upon  sound  tlieory  as  the 
root  of  sound  practice.  Jesus  put  hearing  His  say- 
ings, and  knowing  His  doctrine,  and  doing  His  com- 
mandments side  by  side  with  faith  in  Him.  The 
Apostles  constantly  warned  against "  heresies  "  both  in 
doctrine  and  life.  ^  Believer,^  were  especially  urged 
to  shun  those  teaching  anti-nomianism,  professing  a 
false  gnosis,  and  denying  the  Divine  Christ.  The 
Apostolic  Fathers,  the  anti-Gnostics  and  others  in  un- 
broken sequence  set  forth  Christian  doctrine  against 
erroneous  views.     Weirsticker  therefore  well   says:^ 

1  Cf.  Gal.  V.  20:  I  Cor.  xi.  19;  Tit.  iii.  10;  Rom.  vi.  17; 
II  John  9;  Rev.  ii.  ti;  Jas.  iii.  17;  v.  19;  Jude,  3,  4.  Tliese 
Apostolic  warnings  against  false  teachers  and  wrong  doctrines 
followed  the  example  of  Jesus  Himself.  lie  said:  "Beware  of 
the  doctrine  of  the  Pharisees  "  Matt,  xvi.  12;  He  made 
obedience  the  proof  of  true  doctrine,  Johnvii.  IT;  He  claimed  to 
be  a  teacher,  as  well  as  a  way  of  life,  Mk.  viii.  31. 

^  Daa  Apostob'srhe  Zeitalkr.  Froihurg,  1886,  S.  106.  See 
also  Ritschl,  who  in  his  earlier  writings  (Eiiffttr/tunr/,  S.  336^ 
gave  Christian  dogma  a  legitimate  place.  He  says  the  Old 
Testament  religion  liad  no  dogma,  as  no  pre-Christian  faith 
had,    but  Christianity   as    the    "universal   and   unconditioned 


354 


The  Nicene  Clivi-iohtgy 


■ri 


5:- 


• 


m 


11- 


I" 


.-t-f-- 


"  Christianity  as  religion  is  untliinkable  without 
theology.  And  first  of  all  for  the  very  reason  that 
gave  rise  to  the  theology  of  Paul.  It  cannot  be 
separated  from  the  religion  of  its  Founder,  therefore 
not  from  historical  knowledge."  And  the  reason 
which  he  gives  is  just  as  true  of  the  Nicene  Age  as  of 
the  time  of  Paul;  for  "Christianity  as  monotheism 
and  belief  in  a  goal  to  the  universe  is  also  the  religion 
of  reason,  with  the  inextinguishable  impulse  to  think." 
The  attempt  of  men  like  Wendt  and  liarnack  to 
utterly  separate  faith  and  knowledge  in  Christianity, 
giving  to  the  former  the  contents  of  the  gospel  as  an 
impression  of  Jesus,  and  assigning  to  the  latter  all 
sorts  of  historical  and  philosoi)hical  material  pre- 
sumaldy  foreign  to  religion,  thus  making  Chris- 
tian   doctrine    and    its    history  impossible,  save   as 

spiritual  religion  impelled  toward  theology,  tliat  is  toward  a 
relating  of  religions  certainty  to  thought."  So  Kaftan,  Ztft.  f. 
Til.  u.  Kirclie,  1891,  II.  1.  But  despite  these  adnussions  the 
Ritschl  men  tell  us  that  the  Church  is  paralyzed  ly  dogmas 
and  needs  the  plain  simple  gospel.  And  yet  after  three 
volumes  on  justilication  through  Christ,  \)\  Ritschl,  his  son  has 
to  explain  in  the  biography  of  his  father  that  the  latter  really 
believed  in  Christ  as  divine.  Haruack  says,  "  our  formulas 
should  correspond  to  the  facts";  and  then  theologians  of  his 
school  go  on  telling  us  that  simple  "faith"  is  "aesthetic- 
ethical  power  of  assimilation,"  and  "  sah  ation  "  is  a  "captivating 
and  charming  example  of  self-apotheosi..  tlirough  resolution  of 
the  will  an<l  deepening  of  the  feelings,  that  stirs  to  imitation" 
(cf.  Zehni.fund  1.  e.  S.  l'70).  The  late  Professor  Delitzsch 
once  told  tlie  writer  that  he  thought  the  theology  of  RitL^chl 
would  T"  ^kc  little  progress  in  America,  partly  because  of  the 
obscurity  and  heaviness  of  its  terminology,  and  partly  because 
the  practical  side,  which  he  made  so  })rominent,  was  already 
perfectlv  at  home  in  the  Christianity  of  the  New  World. 


i--(      1 

M 


the  Rule  of  Faitli  and  Dogma. 


355 


three 
Ion  has 
really 
Irnuilas 
lof   his 
thetic- 
valiug 
lion  of 
lation" 
litzsch 
Liti^chl 
lof  the 
lecause 
llreadv 


a  story  of  Hellenistic  or  other  accretions,  must  ever 
break  to  pieces  upon  the  reason  of  man  which  will 
co-ordinate  all  its  knowledge.  There  is  no  conflict  of 
faith  and  knowledge  in  either  ex})erience  or  doctrine.* 
The  llitschl  theoloo;ians  make  the  mistake  here  of 
thinking  that  what  is  first  in  importance  must  l)e  the 
first  in  time.  -     They  argue  that  moral   trust   is   far 

1  Secborg  well  observes, (j5'//t  Gavg  (lurch  die  I)(>(jt)v'iif/es- 
chichfe,  in  JV.  Kirchl.  Ztft.  1890,  II.  11),  that  man  must  think 
over  and  mako  his  own  new  impressions  I'eceived  from  others, 
111  order  that  they  become  real  to  him  and  his  own  free,  mental 
posses  ion.  And  unless  strong  impressions  made  upon  men 
take  shape  in  defir  ite  conceptions  and  motives,  they  disappear 
and  lose  their  ])Ower.  Hence  creeds  meet  a  natural  and 
spiritual  need  of  the  Church.  They  are  the  mind,  expressing  in 
.X  Hay  to  make  permanent  and  portable,  the  sweet  experiences  of 
Lilt  gospel,  which  unless  put  in  terms  of  the  intellect  could  not 
be  transmitted  for  edification  and  defence  to  the  generation 
following.  To  take  the  contrary  view,  which  seems  to  be  that 
of  many  Ritschlians,  is  to  reject  any  true  growth  of  Christian 
doctrine,  and  to  make  Christianity  an  absurdity  in  a  wovld  of 
legitimate  development. 

2  Cf.  Bois,  Le  Dof/me  Gvc,  Paris,  1803,  j).  to.  He 
says,  in  putting  what  is  most  important  in  character  first  in 
time,  the  Ritschl  men  fall  into  the  very  error  which  they 
charge  upon  the  primitive  Church,  of  making  the  exaltation  of 
.lesus  lead  on  to  Ilis  preexistence.  But  F.  Luthe.-  {Aiif 
Auktoritat  iind  Erfaliriaxj  f/ef/ri'didete  (jllanbensijeifisshcit^  in 
N.  Kirchl.  Ztft.,  1895,  II.  2)  finds  the  difference  still  further 
back.  He  says  the  question  is  not  whether  we  assent  to  truth 
or  trust  in  Christ  first;  but  rather  "in  tlie  act  oi  faith  does 
assent,  does  the  thoroughly  as.*ure<l  acceptance  of  the 
revelation  of  redemption  in  the  Scriptures,  a  revelation 
standing  opposed  to  natural  reason  and  its  moral  judgment  re- 
specting God  and  God's  thoughts  of  redemption,  come  into 
consideration  at  all  or  lot?"     Is  faith  a  condition  of  the  work 


ill 


350 


The  Nicenc  Chrifitobxjy 


2i" 


i 


more  valuable  than  intellectual  apprehension,  and 
that  is  true;  l)ut  it  is  also  true  that  ideas  underlie 
free  will  and  moral  trust,  and  ideas  are  intellectual; 
so  that  there  must  first  l)e  active  a  mental  factor, 
though  it  ])e  subordinate  in    value,   before  the    moral 

of  God  within  us,  or  is  it  not  a  condition  hut  an  experience  it- 
self of  being  "  ini])resso(l,"  "overwliehned  through  Christ," 
in  which  our  assenting  will  has  no  part?  Is  faith  trust  iu  a 
"  self  experienced  event,"  or  is  it  that  trust  in  Christ  and  in 
Christ  upon  God  as  our  Father,  whereby  we,  iu  harmony  with 
our  exj)ericnce,  trust,  (Hod  us  found  in  the  /Script i(7'es,  and  honor 
Ilini  by  not  inaVing  Ilini  a  liar?  Here,  he  says,  the  ways 
])art.  He  holds  that  the  Ritschl  school  introtluces  new  and 
wrong  doctrines  about  both  Christ  and  revelation.  It  makes 
reason  a  test  of  both;  for  ''only  what  is  a  posttdatc  of  the 
ethical  autonomous  practical  human  reason  can  be  an  objc(!t  of 
revelation  "  (S.  1:^2).  On  the  other  hand,  "for  the  theology 
of  the  Church  that  is  historical  about  Christ  which  took  place, 
acccM'ding  to  the  testimony  of  the  best  accredited,  divinely 
authorized  witnesses,  to  Christ  and  through  Christ."  Accord- 
ing to  the  Kitschl  men,  the  Dible  reveals  to  us  what  we  already 
know  and  desire;  according  to  the  Church  teachers,  the  Script- 
ures reveal  to  us  what  w(!  do  not  kn»)\v  and  do  not  wish  to  have 
told  us  (S.  123).  The  great  danger  here,  he  says,  is(l)in  reject- 
ing the  Bible  as  objective  religions  authority,  (2)  in  l)uilding 
all  religion  upon  Wirthin'theile  or  subjectivity,  and  (.'5)  in  doing 
so  under  the  name  of  taking  up  an  attitude  toward  "the  his- 
toric Christ."  Herrmann  says  {Ztft.  f.  Th.  v.  Jure/ic.  1894, 
H.  4),  "  faith  cannot  exist  without  reference  to  historical  facts," 
but  the  assensus  to  this  revelation  of  facts  is  not  a  pre-requisite 
to  faith.  Faith  comes  by  hearing  the  Word  of  (Jod,  but  be- 
lieving the  Word  of  God  to  he  true,  he  adds,  is  not  a  part  of  faith, 
So  we  are  forever  kept  halting  bt'tween  faith  and  history,  be- 
lief and  fads  of  knowledge,  with  no  resting  place  from  which 
to  grasj)  both. 

In  its  last  resort,  Harnack  finds  the  relation  of  Christianity  to 
history  to  consist  in  this  (cf.  Ihts  Christenthunixi.  die  Geschichte, 


fll; 


the  Mule  of  Faith  and  Dogma. 


357 


ect  of 
ology 
i>l:ice, 
iiuily 
ord- 
ady 
ript- 
liavo 
'ject- 
(ling 

liis- 
1894, 
u-ts," 
uiwite 
1 1  be- 
iaith. 
,  i,o- 
liich 


|ity  to 

■Me, 


choice  can  be  made.  We  must  know  who  and  wliat 
Jesus  is  1)efore  we  can  trust  Him;  then,  after  we 
know  Him  hoth  liistorically  and  in  our  exj)erience  and 
in  the  experience  of  the  Church,  we  can  take  the  fur- 
ther step  of  formuhiting  this  knowh-dge  in  terms  of  the 

S.  15),  that  the  facts  and  teachings  of  (.'hrist's  life  arc  cssontially 
iuitouch(!d  by  criticism.  "I  cannot  find,"  he  says,  "that  his- 
toric criticism  lias  changed  aught  in  these  tilings.  'I'he  same 
is  true  of  Christ's  witness  to  Himself.  If  liistoric  investiija- 
tioii  had  jtroveu  that  he  was  an  Apocalyptical  fanatic  cr 
dreamer,  whose  word  and  image  must  be  lifted  to  the  level  of 
pure  inlciilions  l>y  the  idealiziiigs  of  the  generations  that  fol- 
lowed, then  all  would  be  very  ditfereut.  But  who  has  proven 
that,  or  who  can  jirove  it?  Besides  the  four  written  (Gospels, 
we  have  a  fifth,  unwritten,  and  it  speaks  in  many  respects  more 
clearly  and  more  inijiressively  than  the  other  four — I  mean  the 
total  testimony  of  the  jjrimitive  Christian  Church."  He  con- 
tinues: "The  plain  liible  reader  should  go  on  reading  the 
(tosjjcIs  as  he  has  always  done;  for  the  critic  himself  can  at 
last  read  them  in  no  other  way."  In  all  this  he  tinds,  liow- 
cver,  that  "  the  spiritu.il  contents  of  a  whole  life,  of  a  Person, 
is  the  one  historic  fact  "'  of  the  New  Testament  history  for  us. 
Now  with  all  I Farnack's  flourish  about  "accidental  truths  of 
history  "  upon  which  "  we  cannot  build  houses,  not  to  speak 
of  all  eternity,"  we  are  still  left  face  to  face  with  this  alterna- 
tive: (1)  either  the  great  facts  of  Christ's  life  and  doctrine  are 
historically  and  morally  certain,  and  we  can  build  upon  the 
Christ  revealed  by  them — here  Ritschl  men  and  orthodox  all 
agree;  or  (2)  they  are  individually  uncertain,  unable  to  staml 
before  criticism — as  llitschl  men  largely  hold  in  particular 
cases,  and  fully  demand  in  theory:  and  tiien,  with  the  elements 
out  of  which  the  historic  Christ  is  composed  all  made  un- 
certain, there  is  not  enough  of  a  rtdl  Christ  left  to  iinprct's  the 
thinking  and  inijuiriiig  mind  permanently. 

It  cannot  be  too  often  repeated  that,  though  the  school  of 
Ritschl  bases  all  Christianity  upon  the  revelation  of  God  \n 
Christ,   this    revelation    is  interpreted    by   two    means,  (1)  th« 


II 


358 


Tlic  Sicene  Chvlntoloij ij 


intellect,  as  was  done  at  Nicaca.  Kaftan  has  finally 
come  to  see  that  "  ever  and  always  faith  is  at  the  same 
time  knowledge"  {Ztft.f.  Tli.  u,  Kirche,  1891,H.  G; 
and  1893,  H.  G);  but  if  this  be  so,  then,  as  a  French 
critic  urges,  we  are  back  once  more  "  on  the  founda- 
tion common    to  all  systematic  theologians,  common 

Werthurtheil,  and  (2)  the  Church,  which  include  reasoning  in  a 
circle  and  land  us  iu  pure  sul>jcctivity.  We  have  revelation  in 
C'hrist,  but  that  revelation  teaches  in  the  Keo-Kantian  view 
nothing  biit  how  man  is  to  rise  superior  to  the  world;  and  that  is 
a  merely  ethical  truth  such  as  the  Stoics  had  without  any  such 
revelation.  It  is  plain,  then,  that  we  have  to  do  here  with 
notliing  but  speculative  concepts  which  have  no  necessary 
reference  to  historic  Christianity.  (1)  The  Werthurtheil  de- 
cides what  helps  to  victory  over  the  world  and  what  not;  that 
is,  what  is  revelation  and  what  not.  But  this  is  a  mere  private 
judgment,  and  lands  in  mereoj)inion  and  a  chaos  of  subjectivity. 
To  avoid  this  danger,  Ritschl  brings  in  (2)  the  Church,  to  help 
his  Werthurtheil.  Herrmann  says  (criticism  of  Lipsius  iu 
Studien  n.  Kritiken,  \%11,  H.  3):  "  Revelation  for  the  indi- 
vidual as  such  there  is  not.  That  we  call  not  I'evelation  but 
hallucination."  Revelation  must  be  tested  also  "from  the 
point  of  view  of  the  Christian  congregation"  [11.  ^^  V.  iii.  0). 
Btit,  as  Pfennigsdorf  convincingly  shows  (  Ver/jleich  der  dorpwit. 
^ysteme  von  iJpsius  u.  liitscld.  A  prize  essay,  Gotha,  1300,  S. 
IGO):  "This  can  afford  no  \\e\\),  for  it  really  does  not  exist 
and  is  nothing  but  an  unconscious  projection  of  his  own  per- 
sonal Werthurtheil.^^  The  Ritschl  theologians  always  iind  the 
consciousness  of  the  churches  about  them  to  reflect  their  own 
Neo-Kantian  Moralism;  hence  this  supposed  check  on  our  sub- 
jectivity is  no  check.  It  is  a  cirrulus  ritiosus,  in  which 
Ritschl  goes  from  his  own  judgment  of  value  to  the  supposed 
judgment  of  value  of  the  congregation,  and  then  back  to  his 
own  judgment  of  value  again,  without  finding  any  certainty 
and  confidence.  Here  is  an  unbridged  chasm,  which,  Pfennigs- 
dorf says,  makes  this  theology  on  one  side  "material  Rational- 
ism "  and,  on  the  other,  "  formal  Positivism." 


the  It  ale  of  Faith  and  Doijhia. 


359 


ir    own 
|lu'  sub- 

Avhich 

kpposed 

to  his 

[rtainty 

lenuigs- 

itioiial- 


to  all  the  orthodox,  who  set  out  from  the  idea  that 
the  gospel  addresses  itself  first  of  all  to  the  niiud, 
the  gospel  is  first  of  all  truth."'  To  take  the  con- 
trary position,  putting  an  impression  of  Clirist  first, 
bases  religion  upon  feelings,  and  unless  feelings  have 
a  doctrinal  element  in  them  they  cannot  l^e  religious. 
It  is  this  preexistent  belief,  inseparai)le  from  feeling, 
that  demands  logical  treatment,  and  such  logical  treat- 
ment leads  necessarily  to  a  system  of  doctrine.  Only 
as  religious  impressions  with  the  reasons  for  them  are 
thus  formulated,  is  growth  in  faith  possible;  and  a 
history  of  doctrine  possible.  Hence  in  the  life  of  the 
Church,  the  experience  and  gospel  of  the  first  preachers 
became  the  theology  and  creeds  of  the  third  and  fourth 
generations.  This  was  not  a  matter  of  learned 
industry,  or  hierarchical  tendency,  or  intention  of  in- 
dividuals, but  the  result  of  a  felt  need.  The  Nicene 
Creed  was  no  political  product  of  calculating  meta- 
physicians; but  a  legitimate  growth  of  Christian 
thought  expressing  itself  for  self-protection  and 
progress.- 

1  Astic',  in  Bois,  1.  c.  p.  26. 

2  Wo  refuse  to  aufcpt  the  alternative  of  hokling  all  the 
ancient  theology  or  ntni;.  We  will  hold  of  the  transmitted 
doctrine  only  what  is  truly  Christian,  the  great  essentials;  and, 
in  order  the  bettor  to  appreciate  these  great  truths  which  are 
part  of  our  heritage,  we  wish  to  keep  alMo'Mvhat  is  best 
capable  of  making  us  comprehend  those  essciilials  "  (Bois,  p. 
299).  Greek  thought  is  the  casket  in  which  the  jewels  of 
truth  have  been  borne  to  us.  It  is  folly  to  be  such  Tiojans  an 
would  forever  cry:  "7V/«co  Ikiuaos  ct  do/infcrentes.''''  Vet  it 
is  that  folly  which  men  like  Hatch  commit,  when,  under  the 
name  of  Hellenism,  they  reject  those  rational  elements,  which 
make  us  best  comprehend  intellectually  the  very  fundamentals 


I 


360 


The  Nicene  Clu'UtoIogij 


w 


%■ 


m : 

my 


,14- 


If^ 


It  assumed  this  dogmatic  form  (1)  because  the 
humau  miud  in  all  its  processes  moves  toward  short, 
sharp,  clear  formulations.  Man  must  reason  on  re- 
ligion as  on  all  else,  and  will  sum  up  his  conclusions 
for  his  own  satisfaction.     Hence,  after  three  hundred 

of  Christianity.  Without  these  fundamental  doctrines,  Bois 
observes,  Christianity  would  evaporate  like  some  subtle  licjuid, 
when  the  vase  containing  it  is  broken.  But  the  Kitsclil 
theologians  oppose  any  authoritative  statement,  even  of  truth 
itself,  llarnack  says  the  great  mistake  in  the  relation  of 
theology  and  creed  in  the  early  Church  was  (I '-  lOf.),  that  their 
places  were  transposed.  Dogma  was  made  the  basis,  not  the  re- 
sult of  theology.  By  that  he  means  tliat  when  once  a  doctrine 
was  decided  to  be  true,  it  became  a  test  in  theological  discussion 
of  other  opinions  seeking  recognition  as  Church  doctrines. 
Now,  within  proper  limits,  surely  that  is  a  true  method  of 
procedure.  Every  scientitic  man  makes  ascertained  results, 
tests  of  further  experiments  and  hypotheses;  for,  as  all  truth 
must  be  consistent,  the  supposedly  true  may  bo  tried  by  the 
admittedly  true.  Only  the  assumption  that  all  fixed  doctrines 
are  wrong,  will  justify  an  objection  to  testing  theological 
novelties  by  well-known  Christian  principles.  In  opposition  to 
Gnosticism,  IMonarchianism  and  Arianism,  it  was  surely 
legitimate  for  Irunaeus,  Tertullian,  Origen  and  Athanasius  to 
appeal  to  the  Rule  of  Faith,  to  the  long-proven,  accepted  and 
recognized  doctrines  of  one  God  and  the  Divine  Christ.  "  The 
doctrinal  statements  embodied  in  the  Creed  were  not  so  many 
formula'  devised  first  by  the  ecclesiastical  authority,  and  then 
imposed  upon  the  members  of  the  Church.  They  were  things 
which  were  first  in  the  consciousness  of  the  Christian  people, 
and  then  in  the  Creeds  "  (Sanday  1.  c).  (1)  In  reply  to  the 
claim  that  Nicene  theology  is  an  unfolding  of  the  gospel,  Ilar- 
nack  urges  that  the  original  gospel  had  nothing  to  do  with 
creation  and  cosmology  and  Christology.  But  such  a  position 
simi»ly  i»icks  out  a  few  words  of  Jesus  about  God  being  Father, 
repentance  being  the  way  to  forgiveness,  and  the  Kingdom  of 
God  being  for  the  humble  in  heart.     It  utterly  ignores  Christ's 


the  Rule  of  Faith  and  Dogma. 


861 


years  of  thought,  the  Nicene  Creed  of  one  hundred  and 
forty  words  of  statement. 

(2)  To  meet  the  world  of  Greek  tliinight  an 
intellectual  creed  was  necessary.  This  is  admitted  by 
men  of  all  schools;  the  school  of  Ritschl  call  it  a  his- 
torical necessity;  we  prefer  to  say  it  was  necessary 
because  man  is  a  rational  beiuir.     What   was   called 


ilo<fical 
tioii  to 
Hiircly 
sins  to 
111    and 
"The 
many 
d  then 
tilings 
[jeople, 
to  the 
|1,  llai- 
,o  "vviih 
)sitioii 
'athcr, 
dom  of 
Christ's 


own  claim  to  preexistcnce,  the  statements  of  the  Apostles  that 
all  things  were  made  by  Ilini,  and  all  the  New  Testament  basis 
for  Nicene  teaeliings.  lie  admits  that  I*aul  had  a  "thinking 
view"  of  Christianity,  but  says  "the  Pauline  gnosis  is  not 
absolutely  identified  by  Paul  himself  with  the  gospel"  (I  Cor. 
iii.  llf;  xiii.  3),  nor  is  it  analogous  to  the  later  dogma,  not  to 
say  identical  with  it"  (I.  18).  Of  course  Paid  does  not  identify 
Gnosis  and  Gospel;  neither  does  any  orthodox  theologian  from 
Ignatius  to  Calviu  and  Edwards.  But  he  does  teach  hotk 
Christian  doctrine  and  personal  faith;  autl  no  man  has  ever  at- 
tempted to  j)rove  the  contrary.  Ilarnack's  systematic  avoidance 
of  Paul  shows  that  he  knew  no  im))ressionist  gospel  would  find 
support  in  his  Eiiistles.  {-J.)  In  reply  to  the  otlier  objection, 
that  the  Nicene  theology  embodies  truth  for  all  time,  he  brings 
forward  the  consideration  tiiat  this  theology  is  "  Christianity 
as  understood  by  antiquity,"  and  cannot,  therefore,  be  i)erpctu- 
ally  valid.  Not  to  lay  stress  upon  the  fact  that  only  a  small 
part  of  "  Christianity  "  was  formulated  by  the  Nicene  theolo- 
gians, we  may  answer  that  if  that  objection  were  good  it  would 
weigh  against  any  rational  statement  of  what  the  gospel 
means;  for  that  is  what  Greek  theology  expressed.  lie  oll'ers 
no  proof  of  his  remark  that  ';e  rise  of  Dogma  was  in  a  period 
when  there  appeared  "a  definite  Psychology,  JMetai)hysics.  and 
Natural  Philosophy,  also  a  definitely  marked  treatment  of 
history"  (I.  21).  (a)  As  observed  already,  Greek  ])hilosopliy 
was  not  essentially  different  from  modern  ]ihilosophy;  and  (b) 
where  its  peculiarities  came  in,  as  its  psycliology  in  Arianism 
or  Apollinarianism,  it  was  brande<l  as  heretical.  He  says  the 
peculiarity  of  that  dogmatic  age  was  in  "knitting  together 
theoretical  knowledge  and  practical  ideas."  Exactly;  and  that  is 


302 


The  yicene  ChrlatoUxjif 


U: 


h 


ii^ 


If 


Hi 


V 


m 


m 


f 


Hellenism  was  just  perfect  liuimin  reason;  and  all  the 
objections  urged  against  the  Nicene  Cliristology  as 
Ilellenization,  can  be  urged  ec^ually  against  any 
application  of  mairs  reason  to  Christ  in  His  relation 
to  God,  the  univ^erse,  history  and  the  Church. 

(3)  The  Nicene  Creed  was  regarded  as  a  test  of 
orthodoxy,  while  the  Bi}>le  was  looked  upon  as  the 
proof  of  orthodoxy;^  hence  a  mininuim  of  doctrine 
was  put  in  the  Creed  as  an  outline  of  fun(himentals, 
within  which  the  full  teachings  of  the  Scriptures 
might  be  fully  jjlaced.  It  did  not,  as  Ilarnack  inti- 
mates, take  one  product  of  Hellenism — the  Divine 
Christ — and  exclude  the  rest  to  prevent  "the  complete 
Hellenization  or   secularization  of  Christianity."  ^     It 

just  the  peculiarity  of  all  Christian  thinkers  now,  save  a  few 
Positivists  of  the  school  of  Ritschl.  (3)  The  so-calleil 
"  Hellenization"  of  Christianity  is  so  much  a  part  of  legitimate', 
rational  evolution  of  the  gos})el,  and  so  colored  by  necessary 
processes  of  thought  that  no  man  can  describe  or  detect  sup- 
posed aberrations.  That  this  secularization  cannot  be  traced  or  its 
evolution  followed  is  admitted.  The  causes  are  named  but  the 
evidence  is  "scanty  in  regard  to  the  process  of  change"  (Hatch, 
p.  5);  it  is  "singularly  imperfect"  (p.  V);  it  is  "r«ot  only  im- 
perfect, but  also  insufficient  in  relation  to  the  effects  that  were 
produced."  Yet  in  spite  of  these  frank  and  full  admissions, 
the  conclusion  that  our  early  theology  is  chiefly  i)agan  phi- 
losophy is  confidently  held.  Harnack  occupies  similar  ground. 
He  says  the  "  History  of  Doctrine  "is  "  one  of  the  most  compli- 
cated of  historical  developments"  (Preface);  and  he  makes  it 
more  complicated  than  is  necessaiy  by  mixing  into  it  all  heathen 
life,  thought  and  superstition,  that  out  of  such  troubled  waters 
he  may  fish  just  the  kind  of  Hellenistic  results  for  which  his 
hook  was  baited. 

1  Cf.  Kunze,  Marcus  Eremita,  S.  184. 

8  The  whole  current  of  this  ne^  tendency  runs  away  from  a 


11 -ii' 


the  Rule  of  FaHli  and  Dmjma, 


nor; 


simply  selected  the  heart  of  the  gospel,  the  Divine 
Redeemer,  and  covered  that  with  n  theological  shiehl; 
l)iit  left  the  great  number  of  other  Christian  doctrines 
to  be  defended  by  the  practical  life  of  the  Church. 

(4)  And  this  Creed  expressed  the  fundamentals  of 
Christian  doctrine  as  a  test  of  orthodoxy.  This  is  the 
point  that  attracts  most  attention  and  opposition.  The 
position  is  first  taken ;  that  the  Christology  of  th(?  Ci'ced 
is  not  that  of  the  primitive  Church;  and  second  if  it 
is,  it  is  not  stated  so  as  to  satisfy  the  Christian  con- 
sciousness of  the  nineteenth  century.  Why,  we  are  in- 
full  theology,  authoritative  doctrines,  and  above  all,  the  Divine 
Christ,  as  real  both  to  the  mind  and  to  the  heart.  Hence,  (1) 
Ilarnack  says  Ztft.  f.  Th.  u.  Alrc/ie  1891,  II.  2)  that  all  religious 
history  shows  a  development  toward  nicikiiif/  rtl!(ii(»>  e(i.-!i/  by  a 
readjustment  of  its  own  principles.  This  is  usually  done,  he 
adds,  by  "  blunting  the  practical  demands  of  religion  through 
the  construction  of  theories  of  dogmatics  "  (S.  89).  That  is, 
when  men  get  tired  living  the  gospel  they  take  refuge  in  writ- 
ing theology,  and  put  an  intellectual  assent  to  certain  doctrines 
in  ])lace  of  repentance,  faith,  and  good  deeds.  But  such  reason- 
ing is  only  the  old  talk  about  theory  and  })ractice.  Of  course  it 
is  easier  to  understand  a  doctrine  than  it  is  to  embody  it  in  ac- 
tion. But  that  is  no  reason  why  Christians  should  not  study 
and  set  forth  all  the  words  of  eternal  life.  Prof.  Ilarnack's 
own  si)irituality  would  doubtless  be  <juickened  more  by  "  slum" 
•work  in  the  city  of  Berlin,  than  by  writing  a  "  History  of 
Dogma  "  covering  two  thousand  pages;  but  no  man  should  for 
that  reason  appeal  to  him  to  lay  down  his  pen  and  thereby  cease 
"  blunting  the  practical  demands  of  religion."  "We  might  add 
also  the  persistent  inquiry :  Where  is  religion  most  active?  among 
the  so-called  orthodox,  who  preach  both  theory  and  j)ractice, 
both  doctrine  and  life,  or  among  those  whose  gospel  is  only 
trust  in  God,  love  to  man,  and  good  living?  The  American 
Churches  are  the  most  orthodox  in  Christendom,  and,  from  Ilar- 
nack's point   of  view,  the  most  dogmatic;  and  yet  they  are  the 


IMAGE  EVALUATION 
TEST  TARGET  (MT-3) 


1.0 


I.I 


1.25 


Iff  ilM 

^  m 

""  m 

'■    i-    III  2.0 


12.5 
2.2 


1.4 


1.8 


1.6 


V] 


<^ 


/2 


o 


7 


.<^ 


^ 


/J. 


'^ 


7 


Phote)graphic 

Sdences 
Corporation 


m 


<v 


<N 


V 


<^ 


^^\  <^ 


23  WEST  MAIN  ^'.^  ST 

WEBSTER,  NY.  14580 

(716)  872-4503 


364 


The  Nicene  Chrifitohhjtj 


(lignantly  asked,  must  we  accept  the  decisions  of  cer- 
tain Greek  synods  as  binding  for  all  time?  We  might 
ask  similar  questions  about  the  man  who  made  the 
multiplication  table,  or  Aristotle  who  gave  us  the 
science  of  logic.  To  make  the  question  still  more 
pointed,  Harnack  defines  the  ancient  Christology  as 
Dogma,  and  Dogma  as  doctrine  formulated  on  sup- 
posed Scripture  authority  and  claiming  infallible 
authority  (III.  160).  Now  we  may  readily  admit 
that  after  the  time  of  the  Great  Councils  the  Creeds 


most  active  and  missionary  of  any  in  tlie  world.  Calvinists  are 
supposed  to  be  pretty  theological;  but  will  any  man  say  that  the 
I*wti.iit((ntcnverein^  or  the  school  of  Ritschl,  or  any  similar 
association  of  churches  of  that  type  can  show  such  "practical 
religion"  as  Covenanters,  Puritans  and  Pilgrims  have  pro- 
duced? 

(2)  Those  who  want  **no  dogma"  often  argue,  as  Unitarians 
do,  that  all  doctrines  are  useless  and  wrong.  They  have  but 
one  dogma,  viz.  -hat  all  dogmas  are  useless.  But  such  a  posi- 
tion simply  ignores  the  mind  in  religion,  and  is  too  easy  to  be 
either  satisfactory  or  true.  It  wouhl  make  all  rational  preach- 
ing and  defence  of  Christianity  impossible.  Christian  life  with- 
out Christian  doctrine  has  never  yet  appeared.  Those  who 
claim  to  show  it  in  Christian  lands  are  simply  cuckoos  in  nests 
of  doctrine  which  they  built  not,  but  whose  warm  environment 
makes  them  what  thov  are. 

The  school  of  Ritschl  are  Positivists  and  attack  doctrines 
which  they  do  not  like  as  metaphysical.  Thus,  bringing  the 
charge  of  being  foreign  philosophy,  they  arouse  prejudice 
against  the  preOxistence  of  Christ, His  divinity,  the  Trinity,  etc. 
But,  as  Bois  remarks,  while  all  that  is  metaphysical  is  not  relig- 
ious, it  is  true  "  that  all  that  is  religious  is  likewise  metaphy- 
sical." Whoever  says:  "  I  believe  in  God  "  is  a  metaphysician. 
Hence  the  Ritschl  school  is  inconsistent  in  now  admitting,  UwW 
rejecting  metaphysics.  This  horror  of  metaphysics  makes  it 
indifferent  whether  Jesus   preexisted  or  not,  or,  as  Bois  adds, 


the  Hale  of  Faith  and  Dogma. 


365 


frequently  got  in  the  way  of  Christ,  and  doctrinal 
intellectual  ism  often  took  the  place  of  faith.  But 
ahusiis  non  toUit  usum;  it  is  also  false  reasoning  for 
Ilarnack  to  assume  that  Protestantism  regards  any 
creed  as  infallible,  and  for  that  reason  demand  its 
destruction  in  the  name  of  gospel  liberty.  We  profess 
the  Niceue  theology,  not  because  it  is  dogma  or  infalli- 
ble, but  because  we  find  it  to  be  Scriptural,  well  ex- 
pressed in  terms  of  the  intellect,  and  approved  by 
long  Christian   experience.     There  were  of  old,  dog- 

(p.  54)  **even  that  lie  ever  existed."  Christ  in  a  parable  or 
myth,  if  believed  true  religiously,  would  be  just  as  effective  as 
the  real  Christ  reached  in  history.  When  all  false  ideas  and 
accidental yWc<.*  are  removed,  Bois  says  the  Kitschl  result  "com- 
pletely eliminates  the  Person  of  Christ  from  Christianity  and 
reduces  it  to  vague,  obscure,  fluctuating  sentiments,  to  the  sen- 
timent of  a  pure  state"  (p.  55).  It  lands  us  in  "  a  mystical 
and  powerless  aspiration,"  in  mysticism — much  as  this  school 
abhors  it —  in  "  nothing  beyond  the  maxims  of  some  monks  in 
the  Middle  Ages."  It  leaves  us  with  a  merely  human  Christian- 
ity; for  it  claims  there  "  is  not  and  cannot  be  a  tjingle  fragment 
of  revelation  for  which  the  critical  investigator  cannot  find  a 
human  origin  "  (p.  60).  Jesus  was  but  the  last  and  greatest 
prophet  (cf.  O.  Iloltzmann,  Ztft.f^  Th.  u.  Kirche,  ISUl,  II.  5). 
In  theory  this  is  not  far  above  some  sayings  of  Mohammed 
about  Christ. 

(3)  Lobstein  {Etudes  Christologiques,  Pari«,  1S04;  review 
by  Kaftan  in  Th.  Lit.  Zt(j.  1895.  No,  6)  especially  argues  that 
the  gospel  of  justification  by  faith  found  by  Luther  in  the  Isew 
Testament  is  out  of  harmony  with  the  Christology  of  the 
Nicene  Creed,  which  he  accepted  as  true.  All  the  Reformers 
declared  them  to  be  in  perfect  agreement — both  thoroughly 
Biblical  and  Christian — but  Lobstein,  Kaftan  and  others  declare 
they  were  mistaken.  It  is  urged  that  the  doctrine  of  God  in 
early  Greek  theology  was  that  of  abstract,  philosophical  cate- 
gories,   and  the   ancient  view  of  redemption  was  of  something 


366 


The  Nicene  Christohgy 


matic  Greeks,  like  the  Roman  Catholics;  there  were 
skeptical  Greeks  like  the  school  of  Ritschl;  there  were 
also  reasonable  Greeks,  likd  the  great  body  of  Chris- 
tian theologians.  Hence  when  we  are  summoned  to 
throw  away  the  Nicene  Christology  because  it  is  Hel- 
lenistic, that  simply  means  to  ask  us  to  give  up  a 
school  of  Greek  positivism  for  a  school  of  Greek  agnos- 
ticism, but  not  to  forsake  Hellenism.  It  asks  us  to 
give  up  good  philosophy  for  bad  philosophy — that  is 
all. 

The  opj^onents  of  the  Nicene  Creed  do  not  know 
what  to  put  in  its  place.     The  cry  of  some  is,  "  no 

physical  of  a  lofty  order.  Differing  from  this,  the  Reformers, 
we  are  told,  taught  a  living  knowledge  of  God  through  faith, 
drawn  from  the  gospel; and  regarded  redemption  as  "an  inner 
work  ethically  conditioned."  Hence  we  are  told  that  "  we  need 
absolutely  a  transformation  of  Christology  in  the  sense  of  the 
evangelical  faith  and  of  the  understanding  of  Scripture  now 
granted  us,"  This  whole  criticism,  it  will  be  seen,  proceedH  on 
the  dualism  of  theoretical  and  practical  knowledge,  whicli  those 
Kantians  ever  introduce  to  breed  confusion  and  division.  The 
Reformers  held  (1)  a  high  view  of  God  as  Absolute,  Source  of 
Being,  Transcendent;  (2)  they  taught  also  that  He  is  Father, 
Love,  revealed  in  Jesus  Christ;  (;3)  they  taught  both  doctrine 
and  faith,  both  knowledge  and  personal  surrender  to  Christ;  so 
that  they  never  dreamed  of  "evangelical  faith"  and  becoming 
"partakers  of  the  divine  nature"  as  being  in  any  degree  in- 
compatible. "  Redemption  as  an  inner  Avork  ethically  condi- 
tioned "  did  not  in  their  minds  set  aside  but  presupposed  a  real 
divine  Christ,  offering  a  real  objective  sacrifice  for  sin,  the 
intelligent  apprehension  of  which  truth  was  the  only  way  of 
salvation.  Luther  confined  the  work  of  the  Sj)irit  to  the  use  of 
the  Scriptures,  to  their  unfolding  and  application;  that  is  a  much 
larger  Christianity  than  the  little  ethical  gospel  found  in  a  few 
sayings  of  Jesus  and  now  set  forth  so  often  as  true  Protestant- 
ism. 


the  Ride  of  Faith  and  Dogma. 


3G 


)4 


dogma"  at  all;  the  watchword  of  others  is,  "a  new 
dogma."  This  latter  view  seems  to  be  gaining  most 
adherents.  Harnaek  has  been  led  by  AVeizsjicker  to 
accept  dogma  in  general,  but  not  the  specific  dogma 
of  the  Nicene  Christology.'  Kaftan  is  earnestly  advo- 
cating a  "new  dogma,"  which  shall,  of  cour.se,  con- 
tain the  Ritschl  tlieology.^  But  none  of  these  theolo- 
gians is  surrounded  by  followers  inspired  with  that 
religious  fervor  and  deep  insight  into  religious  things 
which  are  indispensable  to  the  creation  of  dogmas. 

1  //^s^  of  Dogma,  Engl.  Tr.  I.  18,  22. 

2  Ho  says  {Glauhe.  vnd  Doyma,  S.  20):  "To  tliink  that  the 
Church  can  on  principle  and  in  general  renounce  dogma  is  non- 
sense. That  means  that  we  8up})ose  the  Church  ready  to  give 
up  herself."  Here,  then,  the  "anti-Dogma"  and  the  "new 
Dogma"  men  are  at  swords'  points.  In  the  early  part  of  this 
century  Dr.  Nitzsch  (1840)  elal)orated  a  nevdogma  to  meet  the 
needs  of  both  Lutherans  antl  Reformed;  but  it  fell  siill-born  and 
was  soon  buried.  It  is  now  insisted  that  a  new  dvgma  is  neces- 
sary because  of  the  "  rent  between  our  culture  and  our  whole 
religious  life"  (Kaftan,  S.  19).  Because  the  Reformers  did  not 
strij)  oft"  the  Trinity  and  the  Logos  Christology,  they  "fell  back 
almost  two  centuries  into  the  Middle  Ages"  (Ilarnack,  III. 742  cf. 
Seeberg,  X.  K.  Ztft.  1891,  II.  Y).  To  get  the  new  dogma, 
then,  we  must  (1)  cast  o\\^  of  New  Testament  teachings  the 
"whole  ancient  way  of  regarding  nature,  and  the  traces  of  Rab- 
binical theology  and  Apocalyptik"  (Herrmann).  Here  we  are 
back  necessarily  again  to  the  "accommodation"  nu'thods  of 
Sender.  (2)  We  must  next  cast  out  all  Hellenism,  as  metaphys- 
ics and  mysticism,  because  the  motlern  metaphysics  of  Ritschl 
and  the  new  mysticism  of  Herrmann  do  not  like  certain  doc- 
trines of  the  New  Testament  and  of  earliest  Church  trailitiou, 
which  are  scientifically  supported  by  early  philosophy.  (3) 
Christ  is  to  be  center  of  the  new  dogma;  Christ  "my  Lord" 
(Ritschl,  III.  305),  "  as  living  present  Head  of  His  Church" 
(Kaftan,  lininc/ien  leir  cinneiies  Dogma?  S.  55,  in  Seeberg,  1.  c.). 


368 


TJie  Nicene  Chrhtolofjy 


The  opposition  to  all  dogma,  or  creeds,  rests  chiefly 
upon  the  Kantian  skepticism  which  rejects  metaphys- 
ics from  religion  because  of  a  metaphysics  of  its  own, 
and  tears  the  psychological  unity  of  man's  mind  and 
moral  nature  apart,  according  to  the  peculiar  mental 
science  which  it  adopts.  In  opposition  to  such  nihil- 
ism, we  must  hold  that  there  was  some  religious  truth 

He  is  uni-personal,  of  one  nature,  a  man  of  the  illustrative  value 
of  God.  (4)  At  sight  of  Him  we  forsake  sin  and  adopt  God's 
aim  as  ouv  aim.  The  motive  is  love,  not  necessarily  "holy 
love,"  because  the  wrath  and  justice  of  God  do  not  belong  to  the 
revelation  in  Christ.  (5)  Sin  is  only  ignorance.  («3)  The  im- 
pression of  Jesus — "entrance  into  His  world-view "  (Ritschl,ni. 
384) — gives  deliverance  from  the  world.  And  this  deliverance 
of  the  Ego  from  the  Non-Ego  is  the  new  birth.  In  it  we  know 
we  are  eternal;  though  eschatology  has  little  or  nothing  to  do 
with  Christianity.  That  is  the  New  Dogma,  and  that,  in  spite 
of  all  that  is  said  about  the  presence  of  Christ  now  by  way  of 
recollection  of  Jesus  eighteen  centuries  ago,  is  at  bottom  little 
more  than  Humanitarianism,  or  self-salvation  in  imitation  of 
Jesus.  This  is  clearly  seen  in  Stade's  summary  of  Christianity 
{XJeber  die  Aufgahen  cler  bibl.  Theol.  d.  Alt.  Test.,  Ztft.  f.  Th. 
u.  Kirche,  1893,  H.  I.).  He  says:  "The  only  thing  i)orfectly 
new  in  Christianity  is  the  significance  of  Jesus  as  complete  rev- 
elation of  the  Father  and  as  abiding  mediator  of  redemption;  the 
life  with  God  is  new,  Avhich  Jesus  lived  as  a  pattern  before  his 
Church;  the  estimate  of  the  service  toward  brethren  is  new,  in 
which  service  He  gave  up  His  life."  That  all  sounds  very  sim- 
ple, but  I  venture  to  say  such  a  gospel  cannot  be  preached  with- 
out the  hearers  having  (1)  non-Kitschlian  views  of  the  actuality 
of  New  Testament  facts,  (2)  without  their  assuming  thai  the 
Christ  to  whom  they  pray  and  whom  they  praise  as  bringing 
life  to  them,  is  in  reality  what  He  is  religiously,  and  (3)  with- 
out their  falling  into  idealistic,  mystical  or  Catholic  notions 
about  the  Church  as  an  entity  which  in  some  way  can  give  sal- 
vation as  well  as  Christ. 


the  Mule  of  Faith  and  Dofjma. 


309 


iu  Greek  philosophy  which  no  Christian  preacher  or 
theologian  could  ignore.  Paul  did  not  ignore  it; 
neither  did  John ;  and  if  their  Apostolic  authority  does 
not  cover  what  they  endorse  from  the  Greeks  it  can- 
not make  Christian  what  they  accept  from  Judaism  or 
declare  to  be  the  teachings  of  Jesus  Himself.  Unless 
it  can  be  proven — which  is  impossible — that  all  (ireek 
philosophy  is  false,  then  no  man  is  justified  on  ajyriorl 
grounds,  in  rejecting  Hellenism  as  such.  God  could 
speak  through  the  natural  theology  of  Greece  as  truly 
as  through  the  revealed  theology  of  Israel.  Hatch 
admits  "a  special  and  real  kinship"  between  "the 
leading  ideas  of  Christianity  and  certain  leading  ideas 
of  current  philosophy"  (p.  125),  and  says  of  the  the- 
ology of  the  fourth  century:  "I  am  far  from  saying 
that  those  theories  are  not  true  "  (p.  330).  He  simply 
rejects  them  because  they  are  what  he  calls  "  specula- 
tions." 

But  while  rendering  unto  Greek  philosophy  what 
belongs  to  it,  we  cannot  go  to  the  extreme  of  aticribing 
to  it  the  Christology  of  the  Nicene  Creed.  Three 
facts  may  be  named  here  as  contradicting  this  Ritschl 
theory:  first,  that  the  Christian  doctrine  of  the  In- 
carnation,^ as  well  as  the  Christian  doctrine  of  the 
Resurrection,  cannot  be  found  in  Greek  pliilosoj)liy, 
which  was  either  pantheistic  or  dualistic,  and  never 
admitted  the  personal  union  of  a  divine  being  with  a 
human  body;'^  second,  that  the  Greek  religious  life 
had  an  endless  variety  of  belief;  religious  instruction 

1  As  Harriack  admits  incidentally,  I.  678.     See,  however, 
his  view  of  the  conception  of  God  in  early  Hellenism,  I.  82. 

'^  Cf.  Gretillat,  Expose  de  Theologie  Systematique.     2  Vols. 
Neuchatel,  1892.     T.  11.  Pref.  Xf. 


370 


The  Kicene  Chr\t<tolo<j}j 


and  conscience  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  national 
worship;  hence  the  production  of  one  Rule  of  Faith 
about  the  Divine  Redeemer,  recognized  throughout  the 
whole  Church,  was  a  pure  product  of  Christianity. 
Even  Judaism  had  no  creed.  The  attempt  of  Hatch 
to  derive  the  creed  of  the  whole  Catholic  Church 
from  the  "  agreement  of  opinion  "  which  united  a  few 
Greek  philosophical  schools  and  Gnostic  societies 
(p.  340)  only  illustrates  the  tendency  of  this  brilliant 
writer  everywhere  to  omit  "  central  and  positive  evi- 
dence in  favor  of  what  is  external,  suggestive  and 
subsidiary."  *  The  third  fact  is  found  in  the  Christo- 
logical  movement  that  followed  the  Nicene  contro- 
versy. Harnack  says  Greek  theology,  which  i^egarded 
salvation  as  a  deification  analogous  to  that  of  Christ, 
should  have  logically  and  philosophically  accepted 
Monophysitism  as  the  true  Christology.  But  the 
formula  of  Chalcedon  taus^ht  two  natures  in  the  one 
Person  of  Christ,  thus  showing  that  the  deification  of 
man  was  not  so  prominent  as  Harnack  supposes,  and 
that  Biblical  and  not  philosophical  reasons  were 
dominant  in  framing  the  Creed  about  the  Divine 
Christ. 

The  other  view  of  the  Nicene  Christology  referred 
to  does  not  reject  it  in  toto,  but  maintains  that  it  must 
be  reconstructed  into  a  new  dojjma  to  meet  the  ad- 
vanced  Christianity  of  our  times.  Kaftan  represents 
those  working  their  way  toward  this  position;  l)ut 
does  so  with  so  much  opposition  to  the  Nicene  Chris- 
tology as  obsolete,  and  so  slight  reference  to  the  con- 
tents of  the  new  Creed  that  he  marks  little  progress. 
The  fact  is,  it  takes  such  drastic  measures  to  over- 

^  So  Gore,  Bamp.  Lectures,  p.  273. 


the  Utile  of  Faith  and  Dogma. 


371 


er- 


throvv  the  Nicene  Creed  that  little  foundation  is  left 
for  any  other  Symbol.  The  position  taken  is,  that 
fourth  century  Christolocry  could  not  reach  a  doctrine 
of  permanent  validity.  Hatch  says  to  regard  the  doc- 
trinal decisions  of  Nicica  as  final,  would  l)e  to  believe 
in  "a  development  which  went  on  for  three  centuries 
and  was  then  suddenly  and  forever  arrested."  '  Such 
a  statement,  ij  owever,  bet^s  the  whole  question  at  issue, 
and  assumes  that  the  Divine  Christ  is  a  creation  of 
doctrinal  development.  It  is  not  a  question  of  de- 
velopment, but  of  recognition  of  truth,  which  is  ever 
the  same.  Our  inquiry  is:  Did  the  Nicene  Fathers 
truly  interpret  the  character  of  Christ  in  the  gospel, 
in  the  Scriptures,  in  their  own  experience?  They 
were  certainly  in  a  position  to  do  so.  The  great 
superiority  of  our  modern  Christianity  is  largely  im- 
aginary. Those  Fathers  had  our  Bible  and  our  logic ; 
their  philosophy — materialistic,  pantheistic,  idealistic 
— is  the  current  thought  of  our  century.  They  had, 
as  a  living  possession,  that  Greek  culture  of  "  the 
humanities  "  which  our  literary  faith  still  makes  the 
basis  of  all  learning;  ^  they  had  all  the  facts  necessary 
for  forming  opinions;  they  had  that  changeless  Chris- 
tian experience  out  of  which  all  doctrine  grows; 
hence  Herrmann  is  constrained  to  say  that  "the 
Christological  decisions  of  the  ancient  Church  still 
always  mark  out  the  limits  within  which  such  attempts 
must  move."  ^  Greek  art  sim2:>ly  recognized  once  for 
all  the  changeless  laws  of  aesthetic  proportion.    There 

1  Cf.  p.  332;  also  Loofs,  IJ.  E.  BL,  S.  189. 

2  Cf.    Nerrlitu,    Das   Dognut  vom  klasaisch.    Alterthiim. 
Leipzig,  1894. 

a  Verkehr,  S.  195. 


372 


The  Nicene  Cltristologtj 


is  no  reason  why  Greek  theology  should  not  have  rec- 
ognized, once  for  all,  the  changeless  truth  about  the 
Divine  Christ.* 

Kaftan  says  the  new  dogma  must  spring  from  an 

*  It  was  part  of  God's  plan  that  Christianity  arose  in  Judaism, 
but  spread  in  a  world  of  Greek  thought.  It  was  part  of  His 
plan  that  the  Renaissance  of  Greek  thought  led  back  both  to 
Hellenic  studies  and  primitive  Christianity,  thus  bringing  in 
the  Kefonnation.  Plato  helped  Luther  to  set  aside  the  Papal 
Middle  Ages  and  get  back  to  Paul  and  the  i»ure  gospel.  The 
right  of  private  judgment  came  from  Greece;  as  the  doctrine  of 
justification  by  faith  came  from  the  gospel.  Hence  Renouvier 
says  (in  Bois,  p.  145):  "Classical  history  is  a  part  of  modern 
history;  it  is  the  history  of  the  Middle  Ages  alone  that  is 
ancient."  This  is  just  as  true  of  the  history  of  thought.  Hence 
the  objection,  that  Christian  doctrine  must  be  recast  because 
of  the  culture  of  our  day,  is  groundless,  for  there  is  no  element 
in  our  thinking  that  was  not  known  in  ante-Nicene  days;  "  to 
study  Greek  philosophy  is  to  study  contemporary  philosophy" 
(p.  108).  Bois  adds  that  to  be  urged  "to  reconstruct  dogmas 
with  the  help  of  current  philosophy,  is  simply  to  urge  us  to  re- 
construct them  with  the  help  of  Greek  philosophy;  to  urge  us 
to  construct  Greek  dogmas."  Hence  the  Nicene  theology  must 
be  discussed  on  its  merits,  regardless  of  when  it  was  formulated. 
What  was  false  then  is  false  now;  and  what  was  true  then  is 
true  now.  The  question  is  not,  is  it  Greek,  or  German  or 
English?  but  is  it  true?  Bois  (p.  290)  quotes  Raub  saying: 
"None  of  the  Empiricists  pretend  to  answer  the  question  as 
to  the  value  of  beliefs  by  a  genetic  study  of  these  beliefs;"  he 
adds:  "And  none  of  the  Positivist  opponents  of  Greek  the- 
ology do  anything  else  for  theology." 

Before  denouncing  Nicene  theology  as  Hellenism,  it  should 
be  shown,  (1)  what  doctrines  in  it  cainiot  be  legitimately  deduced 
from  the  teachings  of  Christ  and  the  Apostles;  (2)  or  that, 
Hellenism  had  crept  into  the  words  of  Jesus  Himself  and  the 
preaching  of  the  Apostles.  No  critic  attempts  to  answer  the 
first;  Pfleiderer  replies  to  the  second,  that  Paul  was  largely 


the  Rale  of  Faith  and  Dogma. 


373 


experience  of  faith ;  we  may  well  inquire  how  long  it 
will  be  before  the  experience  of  modern  theologians 
will  rise  higher  than  that  of  men  like  Athanasius 
and  give  us  the  true  dogma  of  Jesu8  Christ. 

Herrmann  and  many  others  of  his  school  declare 

Ilellenizcd.  Hatch  passes  the  whole  problem  by.  Then  Bois* 
remarks:  "We  would  like  to  know  how  he  would  answer  these 
questions:  Just  at  what  point  did  the  theology  of  St.  Paul  cease 
to  be  original?  and,  Are  there  any  ideas  whatever  in  the  Nicene 
Symbol  which  cannot  be  carried  back  to  St.  Paul?"  Uitschl 
{Unterricht,  36),  Wcndt(l.  c.  II.  520),  and  B.aldensperger  (1.  c. 
153f. )  all  agree  that  what  the  Apostles  preached  was  in  full 
accord  with  the  facts  of  Christ's  life  and  teachings.  This  is 
especially  true  of  His  redemptive  death. 

Hatch  does  not  try  to  answer  tiie  questions  asked  by  Bois, 
and  by  every  careful  reader  of  his  writings,  yet  he  closes  his 
lectures  by  saying  that  "the  point  of  most  importance"  in  his 
book  is  that  his  investigations  show  it  to  be  impossible  to  hold 
the  Nicene  theology  to  be  "part  of  the  original  revelation — a 
theology  divinely  communicated  to  the  Apostles  by  Jesus  Christ 
Himself "  (p.    332).     This  avoidance  of  comparison  with  Jesus 
and  the  Apostles  is  a  j)rime  defect  in  the  Kitschl  account  of 
early  Christian  doctrine.     Schcrer  remarks  that  the  theory  that 
Hellenism  "  had  part  in  the  origin  of  the  Christian  religion  is  a 
mere  assertion  for  which  not  a  shadow  of   proof   is  offered." 
Kriiger  quotes  this  statement  (p.  79),  and  then  goes  on  to  show 
that  the  position  of  Harnack,  Hatch  and  others,  who  cut  off  the 
history  of  early  doctrine  from  its  roots  in  the  person  anil  teach- 
ings of  Jesus  and  the  Apostles,  means  that  we  "  lose  connection 
with  New  Testament  theology,  especially  that  of  Paul;  that  we 
get  a  false  view  of  the  post-Apostolic  Jige  as  a  great   "fall" 
from  primitive  Christianity;  that  we  ignore  the  difference  be- 
tween the  times  and  the  people  who  heard  the  preaching  of  the 
Jewish  Apostles  and  the  Gentiles  who  later  received  the  gospel; 
and  that  we  look  entirely  upon  the  dark  side  instead  of  upon  the 
positive  helpfulness  of  ancient  thought  and  culture  "  (Kriiger, 
Was  heisst  D.  G.  S.  53.). 


374 


The  Nicene  Chrlstohnjy 


the  only  fundamental  article  of  faith  is:  "I  believe 
in  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  God."  That,  then,  is  the 
new  dogma.  But  that  is  simply  a  reduction  of  the 
old  dogma  of  Nicrea.  The  ancient  Creed  teaches  that 
Christ  is  both  really  and  religiously  Divine  Son  of 
God ;  the  modern  Creed  affirms  that  He  has  only  the 
religious  value  of  God.  Harnack,  however,  objects 
to  the  contents  of  the  Nicene  theology.  Two  things 
especially  he  finds  defective  in  it;  first  that  it  omits 
what  he  calls  "the  highest  concepts,  those  of  the 
moral  good  and  blessedness,  from  the  system,"  and 
second  that  it  presents  a  perfect  caricature  of  the 
historic  Christ."  We  have  noticed  in  a  previous 
lecture  the  first  of  these,  the  imperfect  view  of  salva- 
tion and  its  relation  to  ethics  in  the  Nicene  Church ; 
but  it  should  be  added  that  the  whole  doctrine  of  the 
atonement  and  Christian  life  is  left  outside  the  ancient 
Creed.*  It  defends  the  Divinity  of  Christ  and  leaves 
all  men  free  in  their  views  about  His  gospel.    As  to 

*  This  ehould  be  borne  in  mind  by  those  who  rail  against 
dogma.  The  Church  has  no  dogma  of  the  Atonement.  Tli3 
great  doctrine  of  "Justification  and  Reconciliation,"  which 
Ritschl  makes  the  center  and  sum  of  Christian  teaching,  is  left 
perfectly  free  by  all  the  ancient  creeds.  On  the  other  hand, 
what  the  ancient  Symbols  teach  was  accepted  by  the  Reformers, 
not  as  Dogma  but  as  Confession,  and  as  based  upon  the  Script- 
ures and  Christian  experience. 

Gore  (Bampton  Lectures  p.  113f.)  urges  three  other  con- 
siderations respecting  the  early  creeds:  (1)  their  attitude  was 
negative  rather  than  positive,  to  defend  essentials;  (2)  their 
framers  felt  driven  by  necessity  and  in  order  to  save  Christian 
belief  from  deadly  error,  to  put  their  faith  in  terms  of  theology; 
and  (3)  the  appeal  and  temper  of  the  creed-makers  were  always 
less  intellectual  than  those  of  the  heretics,  though  the  results 
were  deeper  and  more  rational. 


the  Hale  of  Faith  and  Doijma. 


375 


rainst 

vhich 
8  left 
and, 
lers, 
ript- 

icou- 

was 

their 

stian 

rays 
suits 


the  second  ol)jection,  it  may  be  cnougli  to  ask,  If  the 
Christ  of  Nictea  is  a  caricature,  how  can  the  Christ  of 
Paul,  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  and  the  Fourth 
Gospel  be  treated  with  respect?  To  limit  faith  to  the 
historic  Christ,  to  a  mere  man,  is,  I  repeat,  not  to  gt^t 
a  new  dogma,  but  only  to  apj^ropriate  a  fragment  of 
the  old.  It  is  also  to  laud  us  in  irreconcilable  op- 
position to  the  learning  and  experience  of  all  the 
Catholic  Church  and  of  all  the  Reformers.  Hutch 
claims  to  be  a  pioneer  in  tracing  theChristiunlty  of  the 
Divine  Christ  to  Hellenism' — though  i«  lad  been  at- 
tempted by  others  long  before  his  day'' — and  llarnack 
thinks  it  iilmost  hopeless  to  try  to  stem  tlii  tradition 
of  the  Logos  Christology.  Especial  difficulty  is  found 
with  Luther.  He  held  to  the  Divine  Christ  and  the 
Trinity  of  the  Nicene  Creed,  and  built  upon  them  his 
glorious  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith.  Luther 
and  the  ileformers  did  not  know  it,  but  Ritschl  and 
his  followers  have  now  discovered  that  such  a  union 
of  knowledge  and  belief  "  confuses  and  darkens  our 
faith  and  makes  it  void.'"  The  Reformation  spread 
in  spite  of  the  fundamental  contradictions  which  ever}^- 

1  llarnack,  too,  says  his  is  the  "first  attempt  to  stem  false 
tradition  '*  and  show  that  only  what  is  found  in  the  gospel  be- 
longs to  Christianity.  But,  as  we  liave  seen,  he  nowhere  dares 
to  compare  Avhat  he  regards  as  Christianity,  step  by  step,  with 
what  Jesus  and  the  Apostles  set  forth  as  the  gospel.  Neither 
is  it  an  argument  in  favor  of  his  position,  to  suggest  that  he  is 
the  first  to  discover  that  the  Christology  believed  in  the  Church 
from  the  Fourth  Gospel  to  the  present  c  ly,  is  heathenish  in  its 
origin  and  secularizing  in  its  influence. 

2  Cf.  Nippold,  in  Hilgenf eld's  Zeitschrifty  1801.  H.  3,  S. 
318. 

»  Harnack,  D.  G.  III.  742. 


376 


The  Nicene  Christology 


I'PI 


J5 


'iHi 


where  burdened  it.  The  Ritschl  iiien  iinist  cut 
asunder  Luther  the  Reformer,  nnd  Luther  the  School- 
man; the  man  with  an  impression  of  Jesus  must  be 
parted  from  the  theologian  who  knew  what  (Jhrist 
was — and  all  because  of  their  theory  that  Christianity 
is  "  not  Biblical  theology,  not  doctrines  of  councils,  but 
the  dis2)osition  which  the  Father  of  Jesus  Christ 
awakens  in  the  heart  by  the  gospel."  * 

However  much  that  may  sound  like  the  gospel,  the 
fact  that  in  its  application  it  must  cleave  asunder 
every  Christian  teacher  from  Paul  to  Augustine,  from 
Augustine  to  Luther,  from  Luther  to  Delitzsch  and 
Frank  and  Hodge,  shows  a  fatal  conflict  between  its 
principles  and  the  necessary  movement  of  intelligeni; 
Christian  life.-     Luther  opened  up  the  same  fountain 

»  Harnack,  III.  700. 

2  llerrinann  says  {Die  Geicissheit  des  Gknihcns  it.  die  Frciheit 
dcr  Theolofiie,  1887,  pp.  G4f.)  of  Luther  that  he  "  simply  would 
not  have  been  able  to  work  upon  his  contemporaries,  lie  would 
have  remained  a  stranger  to  his  age,  had  he  not  been  also  a 
scholastio"  (p.  10).  That  is  a  little  better  position  than  that 
of  Ritschl,  Avho  made  Luther  cling  to  dogma  or  theology  for 
ecclesiastical  and  j)olitical  reasons;  yet  even  Herrmann  says  "we 
should  join  ourselves  to  Luther  the  evangelical  Christian,  but 
not  to  the  scholastic  Luther."  He  puts  in  Luther's  "  scholastic 
school  bag  "  nearly  all  his  Christir.nity,  however,  for  he  assigns 
to  it  "  the  dogmas  in  which  Luther  knew  himself  to  be  one 
with  the  old  Church."  These  dogmas  of  the  Trinity  and  Chris- 
tology Hermann  calls  but  the  "egg-shells  of  the  Reformation " 
(S.  20),  and  of  no  more  value  than  Church  organization.  They 
wei'e  a  "superficial  and  injurious  cloaking"  of  the  gospel, 
which  must  be  stripped  off  to  complete  the  Reformation!  But 
stripping  these  oft  leaves  only  a  human  Jesus  teaching  natural 
theology,  and  all  revelation  of  salvation  in  Ilim  vanishes  away; 
for  if,  as  Herrmann  holds,  Greek  philosophy,  and  the  "  organi- 


stologij 

ist  cut 
School - 
[lust  be 

(Christ 
5tianity 
;ils,  l)iit 

Christ 

pel,  the 
asunder 
le,  from 
ich  and 
^-een  its 
elligent 
'ountain 


!  Frcihdt 
»ly  would 

0  would 

1  also  a 
lan  that 
logy  for 
lys  "we 
ian,  but 

holastio 
assigns 
be  one 

a  Chris- 

ation  " 

They 

gospel, 

i!     But 
natural 

bs  away; 
organi- 


the  Itule  of  Faith  and  .Dogma. 


377 


of  living  waters  as  did  the  Nicene  theologians.  He 
used  the  tools  of  a  somewhat  different  philoso])hy  and 
learning,  ])ut  he  reached  the  same  Divine  Redeemer, 
and  by  deeper  study  of  Paul  struck  a  doctrine  of  re- 
demption much  richer  than  that  of  Athanasius  and 
the  Gregories.  In  his  doctrine  of  sin  he  learned  from 
Autrustine;  in  his  doctrine  of  Christ  the  Saviour  he 
learned  from  Athanasius;  but  now  the  new  gospel 
tells  us  he  learned  error  from  both.  This  is  very  sad 
to  hear.  For  many  years  the  New  School  tlieology 
of  English-speaking  lands  has  been  tigliting  Calvin- 
ism and  Augustinianism,  and  setting  forth,  though 
somewhat  one-sidedly,  the  bright  Biblical  character  of 
the  Greek  theology.^    Now  comes  the  school  of  Uitschl 

zation  of  sot'ioty  by  the  Roman  stalo,"  as  well  as  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, all  "  belong  to  the  historical  existence  of  .Jesus"  (S.  31), 
more  or  less,  then  all  is  revelation  and  nothing  is  revelation  in 
the  proper  sense  (cf.  Luthardt,  in  Ztft.  /.  Kirclil.  W.  n.  K. 
Lthcti,  1887,  II.  4).  Frank  well  says  (.V.  Aln/d.  Zf/f.,  189-2, 
11.  10)  that  Luther  and  all  the  Reformers  "recognizcMl  most 
decidedly  and  unequivocally  the  theology  of  the  early  Chunh  — 
recognized  it,  that  is,  in  the  sense,  that  real,  evangelical,  saving 
faith  does  not  exist  apart  from  those  fundamental  principles  of 
faith  out  of  which  it  grows."  The  constant  apjieal  to  Luther 
shows  a  fear  that  this  new  theology  cannot  stand  alone.  No 
man  can  separate  Luther's  theology  of  Christ  from  his  gospel  of 
justitication  by  faith,  and  preach  to  plain  people  so  as  to  he  in- 
telligible and  effective.  This  manifest  failure  of  followers  of 
Ritschl  to  show  that  Luther  was  a  non-metapliysical  theologian 
and  Reformer,  strengthens  the  presumption  against  their  con- 
tention that  the  Nicene  Christology  was  a  jtroduct  of  Greek 
philosophy. 

1  Allen,  a  liberal  Episcopalian,  says  that  instead  of  the  Ni- 
cene theology  being  obsolete,  the  freshest  impulses  in  recent  re- 
ligious tho  ight  are  but  recalling  some  of  its  leading  features. 


«>;*^- 


„./■ 


378 


The  Nicene  ChrUtologij 


*;■.! 


If: 
P' 


k 


III'  ' 


and  declares  that  this  early  Greek  apprehension  of 
the  gospel,  this  happy  harmony  of  Christianity  and 
culture,  so  needed  in  our  day,  was  a  pagan  seculariza- 
tion of  the  primitive  faith.  And  we  are  left  with  no 
theology  save  that  of  reminiscences  of  Christ  and  im- 
pressions which  refuse  to  take  expression  in  terms  of 
knowledge.  Seeberg  well  remarks*  that  such  a  new 
dogma  sets  aside  good  doctrines,  now  doing  a  blessed 
work,  for  others,  which  have  not  yet  proven  their 
right  to  be;  makes  most  of  our  hymns,  books  of  de- 
votion, and  worship  of  Christ  unusable;  offers  the 
Church  new  doctrines  for  which  her  worshipers  and 
workers  are  not  asking;  and,  by  robbing  the  Trinity 
and  the  Divine  Redeemer  of  all  reality,  does  violence 
to  the  consciousness  of  the  most  godly  men.'^ 

Among  these  are  the  view  that  the  Church  is  not  identical  with 
any  form  of  ecclesiastical  organization,  the  little  stress  laid 
upon  priestly  mediation  and  sacramental  grace,  that  baptism  is 
not  absolutely  necessary  to  salvation,  the  freedom  of  the  will  in 
religious  choice,  the  love  of  God  in  Christ  rather  than  the  sight 
of  the  law  showing  men  their  sins,  that  redemption  is  the  im- 
parting of  the  new  life  of  Christ  rather  than  paying  a  debt  to 
the  devil  or  to  justice,  that  the  appearance  of  Christ  is  the  great 
supernatural  revelation  of  God  carrying  His  miracles  with  it 
rather  than  making  them  proof  of  His  revelation,  and,  above  all, 
that  the  incarnate  and  glorified  Christ  is  the  sum  and  center  of 
all  doctrine  and  life.  These  ideas,  he  says,  so  much  heai'd  of  in 
modern  times,  were  all  familiar  elements  in  the  Nicene  theol- 
ogy (cf.  Cuntimiity  of  Christ.  ThoiKjht,  Boston.  1884.  p.  17f. 
34ff).  These  views  are  adopted  by  Heard  {Alexandrian  and 
Carthaginian  Theology  contrasted,  London,  1893),  who  dwells 
at  great  length  u[)on  the  Greek  theology  as  the  "  New  Theol- 
ogy," which  we  now  need. 

»  N.  Kirchl  Ztft.  1891.  H.  7. 

2  Dr.  James  Martineau,  the  leader  of  Unitarianism  in  Eul;;- 


the  Hide  of  Faith  and  Dogma, 


3  TO 


Ent{- 


Harnack  is  plainly  embarrassed  (III.  743)  ny 
what  he  calls  "  the  strongest  argument"  urged  against 
his  ante-Nicene  view  of  Christianity,  viz.,  that  it  is  the 
preaching  of  the  old  theology  which  produces  "a  deep 
knowledge  of  sin,  true  penitence,  and  a  living  Church 
activity."  He  can  only  answer  that  such  a  chalh-nge 
is  Pharisaic — forc^ettino;  what  Christ  said  about  trees 
being  known  by  their  fruits — and  by  the  plea  tliat 
the  orthodox  hold  possession  of  the  churches,'  forget- 
ting again  that  Kantian  rationalism  held  possession 

land  and  its  greatest  theologian  in  the  English-speaking  worM, 
at  the  celebration  of  his  ninetieth  birthday  (18'.>C  ,  among  other 
remarks  said  (I  quote  from  a  newspaper  reixjrt):  "  I  am  coii- 
straiiiod  to  say  that  neither  my  intellectual  preference,  nor  my 
moral  admiration,  goes  heartily  with  the  Unitarian  heroes, 
sects  or  productions  of  any  age.  Ebionites,  Arians,  Socinians, 
all  seem  to  contrast  unfavorably  with  their  opponents,  and  to 
exhibit  a  type  of  thought  and  character  far  less  worthy,  on  the 
wliole,  of  the  true  genius  of  Christianity.  I  am  conscious  that 
my  deepest  obligations,  as  a  learner  from  others,  are  in  almost 
every  department  to  writers  not  of  my  own  creed.  In  ))hi- 
losophy,  1  have  had  to  unlearn  most  of  that  I  had  imbibed  from 
my  early  text-books,  and  the  authors  in  chief  fa\or  with  them. 
In  Biblical  interpretation,  I  derive  from  Calvin  and  Whitl)y 
the  help  that  falls  me  in  Crell  and  Belsham.  In  devotional 
literature  and  religious  thought,  I  lind  notliing  of  ours  that 
does  not  pale  before  Augustine,  Taylor  ami  Pascal.  And,  in 
the  poetry  of  the  Church,  it  is  the  Latin  or  the  (merman  iiymiis, 
or  the  lines  of  Charles  Wesley,  or  of  Keble,  that  fasten  on  my 
memory  and  heart,  and  make  all  else  seem  poor  and  cold." 

1  llarnack  does  add  athird  reply,  viz.,  that  "living  Church 
activity  "  offers  no  guarantee  of  uncorrupted  evangelical  faith. 
If  activity  alone  decided,  he  says,  then  Luther  was  wiong  when 
he  iilunged  the  old  Church  into  a  revoh:t.ion.  But  (1)  the 
activity  shown  by  orthodox  Christians  in  all  kinds  of  mission 
work  and  in  holy  living  is  recognized  l>y  their  opponents  to  be 


380 


The  Nicene  Chriiitolofjy 


It";: 


; 


1:1 


fl? 


of  most  of  the  German  churches  a  couple  of  genera- 
tions ago,  till  the  judgments  of  God,  recognized  in  the 
Napoleonic  wars,  and  the  revival  of  Bible  religion  and 
orthodoxy  brought  the  churches  once  more  into  pos- 
session of  believing  men. 

genuine  Christian  activitj^;  (2)  it  shows  itself  in  the  same  way 
that  the  primitive  gospel  appeared  in  action,  viz.,  in  much 
prayer,  in  adoration  of  Jesus,  in  revivals,  in  i)ersonal  work  by 
all  believers.  The  horror  of  Pietism,  Methodism,  and  all  re- 
vivalism shown  by  the  Kantian  theologians  indicates  the  differ- 
ence of  spirit.  (3)  The  case  of  Luther  is  not  parallel,  for  lie 
and  his  followers  became  at  once  more  active  than  the  foUowt  rs 
of  the  Pojjc;'  hence  Germany  became  so  largely  Protestant. 
The  orthodox  activity  shows  that  it  is  successor  ot  Luther  by 
bearing  the  saiue  fruits.  No  man  could  imagine  Ritschl  stajid- 
ing  at  Worms;  but  Ilengstenborg,  or  Luthardt,  or  Kahnis,  or 
Von  Ilofmann  might  be  supposed  speaking  the  words  of  Luther 
there.  It  was  "Old  Lutherans  "  that  seceded  in  Prussia  and 
came  to  America  seeking  liberty  of  conscience.  They  were 
not  the  men  who  would  reject  every  article  of  the  Creed  of 
the  Church  and  j'^et  show  their  activity  in  eating  her  bread  and 
breaking  down  her  bulwarks.  (4)  It  may  not  be  true  that  all 
religious  activity  springs  from  truth;  but  it  does  spring  from 
conviction  of  truth.  The  Ritschl  school,  above  all  else,  claim 
to  preach  the  gospel  and  practical  religion.  They  have  done  so 
for  over  twenty  years;  will  their  most  brilliant  advocates  now 
inform  us  (a)  in  what  respects,  if  any,  their  followers  show 
deeper  piety,  and  more  Christlikeness  than  the  followers  of 
"dogma;"  and  (b)  how  far  does  the  quality  of  their  work  and 
its  extent,  in  pastoral  duties,  home  missions,  city  missions,  re- 
form activities,  foreign  evangelization  excel  that  of  their  ortho- 
dox brethren?  We  are  in  a  practical  age,  and  from  a  practical 
school  of  theologians  may  well  demand  practical  proof.  I  have 
read  the  Zcitschrift  f.  Missionskunde  u.  litUtjioHswissenschoft, 
since  it  began  its  career  in  1885,  to  learn  what  the  liberal  the- 
ology can  do  in  winning  "the  nations  of  culture"  to  Christian- 
ity; but  have  as  yet  found  no  indication  that    "judgments  of 


genera - 
'tl  iu  the 
jion  and 
a  to  pos- 


lamo  way 
in  niiu'h 
work  by 
d  all  re- 
lie  cliffi'p- 
1,  for  he 
ollowcrs 
Jtostant. 
ither  by 
il  stand- 
hnis,  or 
Luther 
ssia  and 
ey  were 
lecd  of 
3ad  and 
that  all 
g  from 
,  claim 
lone  so 
es  now 
s  show 
ers   of 
'k  and 
ns,  re- 
ortho- 
ictical 
[  have 
vfoift, 
il  the- 
stian- 
lt8  of 


the  Bale  of  Faith  and  Dogma.  sgi 

What,  then,  is  the  conclusion  of  the  whole  matter? 
Hatch  says  (p.  35)  it  is  either  to  go  back  to  a  Chris- 
tianity  which  is  only  "trust  in  God,"  a  way  of  moral 
living;  or  to  regard  the  Gospel  as  a  development 
still    going    on;   in   either  case,  Hellenism  will    be 

value"  or  an  anti-metaphysical  gospel  or  a  Monistic  view  of 
faith  IS  moving  the  hearts  of  the  Japanese  as  much  as  the  tra- 
ditional gospel  has  done.  In  America  especially,  we  feel  the 
importance  of  a  theology  that  has  legs,  that  can  run  on  its  own 
mission;  and  unless  the  teachings  of  Ritschl  show  "livincr 
Church  activity"  greater  than  the  -secularized"  Churchel 
against  which  they  are  hurled,  wc  may  well  pause  and  await 
turther  the  testimony  of  time. 

Brought  face  to  face  with  infidels  and  materialists  what  shall 
we  preach?     Herrmann  replies  in  a   paper  addressed  to  s.i'ch 
classes  called  lieligion  unci  Socialdemok'ratle  (in  Ztft   f.  Th    n 
Kirche.  1891,  H.  4).     He  tells  them  that  external  facJs  such  as 
Christ  s  resurrection  "arc  but  a   legend  or  at  most  very  doubt- 
ful stories."     But  he  says  there  is  one  great  fact,  namelv  love, 
which  governs  all.     He  suras  up  Christianity  thus:    -  Our  fiith 
rests  upon  nothing  but  the  fact  that  in  this\vorld  the  i>orsonal 
life  of  Jesus  Christ  is  to  be  found.   Whoever  has  still  a  min<l  to  per- 
ceive real  love,  and,  therefore,  can  see  the  personal  life  of  Jesus 
can  become  a  Christian  "  (S.  284).     Again:     "Whoever  con' 
siders  and  takes  to  heart  the  .act  that  a  man  in  this  world  has 
so  felt  and  willed,  so  thought  about  himself  and  about  us   and 
judges  himself  and  the  world   accordingly,  he   becomes  a  Chris- 
tiar  "      Such    Neo-Kautian   sentimentality    lacks    the    soun.l 
sense  of  the  late  Professor  Swing  of   Chicago,  who  preached 
to  a   fashioaable    audience    the    universal  love   of   God,    l,ut 
had    his    large    mission    school     conducted   with    Moody    and 
Sankey's  hymns  and  old-fashioned  gospel  addresses.     (5)  Sim- 
liar    rejections    elsewhere    of    dogmatic    supernatural    Chris- 
tianity   do    not   whisper   hope    to    Kitschlianism.     The    Pro- 
testantenverein  on    its    thirtieth   anniversary    lamented  -that 
the    visible,   actual   fruits  of  its  labors  were  exceedingly  few 
in  comparison    with    the  hopes    which    had    been   built  upon 


882 


The  Nicene  Cliriatology 


dropped,  either  as  something  foreign  to  Christianity 
or  as  something  left  behind  in  its  evolution  (so 
Harnack,  I.  18).  But  surely  this  is  not  a  case  of 
tertiumnon  datnr.  We  refuse  to  be  impaled  on  the 
alternative:  Christianity  is  either  all  an  impression 
of  faith  or  all  a  knowledge  of  doctrine.  It  is  both. 
It  is  more  than  a  moral  influence;  it  is  also  more 
than  any  form  of  gnosis.     It  is  oneness  with   Jesus 


f\ 


K.     !' 


ife;. 


1 


•1.  ^- 

I: 


Ih 


it"  (quoted  by  Buchrucker,  S.  10).  At  the  fiftieth  anniversary 
of  a  like  liberal  union  in  Switzerland,  the  "Swiss  Ministers' 
Society,"  Dr.  Furrer  said:  "  The  liberal  tendency  in  the  Church 
has  not  performed  what  it  promised.  It  stands  before  us  with 
most  pitiful  lack  of  results.  It  has  not  warded  off  godlessness; 
on  the  contrary,  it  has  promoted  intellectual  pride,  and  pre- 
pared the  way  for  religious  nihilism.  It  has,  further,  largely 
driven  thirsting  souls  out  of  the  Church  by  its  preaching.  It 
has  overvalued  the  worth  of  the  Illumination  and  despised 
mysteries,  without  which  there  can  be  no  religion.  It  has 
robbed  prayer  of  its  contents  and  power;  it  has  made  God  to 
be  a  mere  unknown  Somewhat"  (<i.).  The  late  Dr.  Bieder- 
manu  of  Ziirich,  made  a  similar  statement  to  me  in  1883.  lie 
said  the  rejection  of  the  historical  and  supernatural  in  Chris- 
tianity had  made  the  churches  of  Ziirich  so  demoralized  that  a 
Hindu  or  Mohammedan  could  be  admitted  as  such,  and  no  stop- 
])iiig  creed  stand  in  his  way.  (C)  Perhaps  it  is  not  unkii;d  to 
say  that  Iviischl,  whoever  put  the  ethical  apprehension  of  Chris- 
tianity in  the  first  place,  was  not  a  man  marked  by  great 
spiritual-mindedness.  In  the  breach  wiih  his  old  teacher  Baur, 
that  great  master  said  it  was  not  Ritschl's  scientific  arguments 
that  touched  hira,  but  the  unworthy,  anonymous  attack,  de- 
claring Baur's  work  of  no  real  significance,  made  by  a  man  who 
still  kept  up  most  friendly  private  correspondence  with  the 
head  of  the  Tiibingen  school  (cf.  Nip})old,  1.  c.  I.  234).  In 
much  of  Ritschl's  criticism  he  was  merciless  and  severe.  The 
reader  of  his  biography  by  his  son  {Albrecht  liltschPs  Leheu, 
1891,  Freiburg),  still  more  the  rea-^'^r   of  Nii)pold's  book,  will 


the  Rule  of  Faith  and  Dogma. 


38:5 


I  Chris- 
great 
I  Baur, 
Inients 
|k,  <le- 
who 
1  the 
In 
The 
\chen, 
will 


Christ;  Jesus  Christ  is  a  person;  and  a  person  can 
make  himself  known  only  by  definite  acts  and  definite 
ideas  (Bois,  Appendix  iii.).  If  His  thoughts  have  a 
Jewish  or  Hellenist  coloring  that  does  not  touch  their 
valuj,  which  rests  in  Him  as  source.  The  revelation 
of  God  in  Christ  was  a  human,  a  historic  revelation, 
and  as  such  can  be  apprehended  only  historically  and 

hardly  fail  to  find  in  the  hard,  moralistic  anti-pietistic  temper 
of  this  theologian  a  key  to  much  that  he  declared  to  be  the 
Christianity  of  Christ  and  of  the  primitive  Church.  He  lectured 
on  ethics  first,  and  from  it  approached  theology.  Not  a  little  of 
his  infallible  temper  appears  in  the  writings  of  his  followers, 
who  are  inclined  to  regard  it  as  a  matter  of  course  that  theo- 
logians or  critics  who  differ  from  them  only  show  their  incom- 
petency or  wilful  blindness  to  the  truth  (sc?  illustrations  in 
Nippold,  II.  S.  52f.). 

In  speaking  of  "the  Rhine  Church,"  which  is  active  in 
Christian  missions  at  home  and  abroad,  Ritschl  finds  it  in  his 
heart  to  refer  to  its  clergy  as  "terrifying  themselves  and  their 
young  followers  into  the  lazy  pietistic  orthodoxy  "  (in  a  letter 
to  Nippold,  Die  theol.  Eiuzehchnle  I.  S.  12). 

In  another  of  his  outbursts  against  tiie  "  Pastorenthum," 
which  attacked  his  theology,  he  comforted  himself  that  he  wus 
gaining  a  following  among  students  (in  1872).  lie  continues: 
"  Through  the  labors  of  a  true  follower,  a  professor  in  Aberdeen, 
and  whom  I  won  four  years  ago  through  my  ethics,  the  first 
volume  of  my  book  (on  Justification)  has  been  translated  into 
English.  This  man  (W.  Robertson)  Smith,  a  very  many-sided 
and  penetrating  theologian,  has  spent  the  summer  again  here 
studying  Arabic,  lie  has  already  persuaded  ditferent  Scotch- 
men to  come  here,  who  are  attending  my  lectures,  and  lie 
promises  further  assistance."  When  we  remember  that  Kwald 
was  also  professor  in  GiUtingen,  we  may  tind  some  explanation 
of  the  infallible  air  which,  in  the  case  of  Robertson  Smith  and 
other  critics,  provoked  opposition  in  the  Church  fully  as  much 
as  did  their  critical  theories  or  their  theolojjical  statements. 


384 


The  Nicene  Christology 


h 


also  theologically.  The  Apostles  so  apprehended  it, 
and  found  a  place  for  both  faith  and  knowledge  in 
the  Gospel  of  Christ.*  To  say  that  we  must  ignore 
Paul's  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith,  in  order  to 
honor  "the  trust  in  God  "  which  Jesus  is  said  to  have 
preached,  is  to  turn  early  Christianity  upside  down. 
To  say,  on  the  other  hand,  that  a  growing  knowledge 
of  what  was  involved  in  Christ  and  His  Gospel  as 
found  in  Church  tradition  and  the  New  Testament  is 
the  addition  of  heathenism  to  Christianity,  is  also  to 
put  the  temporary  form  and  literary  terminology  in 
place  of  the  contents  of  doctrine.  The  Gospel  must 
ever  be  set  forth  in  the  language  of  current  culture, 
and  in  relation  to  all  other  truth;  but  the  Divine 
Christ  who  reveals  it  to  the  world  will  be  "  the  same 
yesterday,  today,  and  forever."  We  have  not  yet  ap- 
prehended all  that  is  meant  by  the  fullness  of  the 
Godhead  bodily  in  Him;  but  we  do  find  that  our  high- 
est thinking,  as  well  as  our  deepest  faith  and  love, 
prompt  us  ever  to  cry  with  Thomas:  "My  Lord  and 
my  God." 


ih^ 


'iU 
tJr. 


M 


J  Though  Ilarnack  later  concludes  that  the  Evangelists 
partly  misun'^ierstood  Jesus,  and  partly  perverted  His  words  by 
putting  a  "  ieeper  "  meaning  into  them.  He  is  here  back  in 
line  with  the  Gnostics,  Celsus,  Strauss  and  all  otliers,  whether 
heretics  or  heathen,  who  can  only  rob  the  Saviour  of  His  divin- 
ity by  robbing  the  New  Testament  of  its  trustworthiness.  Cf. 
his  Gnost.  Buck  Pistis-Soj^hia,  Leipzig,  1891,  S.  55. 


\ 


f<\t 


"istology 


nded  it, 
ledge  in 
t  ignore 
rder    to 

to  have 
?  do\\Ti. 
owl  edge 
3Sj)el  as 
ment  is 

also  to 
)logy  in 
3I  must 
culture, 

Divine 
le  same 
yet  ap- 

of  the 
r  high- 
i  love, 
>rd  and 


ingelists 
ords  by 
back  in 
whether 
8  divin- 
is.     Cf. 


INDEX. 


Allen,  a.  V.  G.,  on  Greek 
theology 37^ 

Anen,  of  Harvard,  on  Logos, 
188;  on  Trinity 339 

f°f^^^ '.'.'.'.'.'..*.'  205 

Apologists,  teachings  of  on 
Theology,  162;  Philosophy, 
165;  Christology,  I66f.,  177; 
Soteriology,  208f.;  Holy 
Spirit,  272f. 
Apostles,  view  of  Jesus,  43f., 

authority  of,  60f. 
Arianiam,  242f.,  260,  337f, 
Athanasius,  on  Christ,  11,  235; 
on    salvation,    197,    214;    on 
Holy  Spirit 276,  300 

Baldenspergeh,  on  Messianic 
hope,  37;  on  Hellenism,  59; 

on  Jewish  theology 

Baptism,  198f /[ 

Baur,  on  Ebionites,  25,  268;  on 

Christ,     68;     on    Apostolic 

Church,  75;  on  Atonement. 

Behm,  on  Apost.  Fathers.  .204, 

Bender,  on  Religion 13] 

Bert,  on  Aphraates 302' 

Beyschlag,  on  Messiah,  38,  39; 

on  Church  Constitution * 

Bigg,     on    Gnostics,    100;    on 

Otigen 190,212, 

Blass,  on  Luke 

Bois,  on  Dogma,  355f.,  372f.. 

Bomemann 

Brown,  on  Virgin  birth 


93 
318 


225 

205 

14 

341 

41 


PAGE 


215 

263 

383 

57 

294 


Buchrucker,  on  Jesus,  38;  on 
liberal  theology 300 

Cappadocian  theologians,  300f. 
Caspar!,    on  Creeds,  321,  3J2, 

^,' •.••••••••••    :«4,335,'344 

Christ,   and  the  Kini,'dom,   7; 

uniqueness  of,  8f.;  preexist- 
ence  of,  57;  divinity  of,  46, 
137f.;     In    New   Testament^ 
141;  in  Apost.  Fathers,  I42f.; 
in  Apologists,  leOf.;  in  Alex' 
theology,    I88f.;    in    Nicene 
doctrine,     338f.;     work     of 
Christ,  197f, 
Christianity,   the    religion    of 
Christ  and    the    Church,  7; 
more  than  Christ,  18;  in  'the 
Old  Testament,  18;  in  Nature, 
19;  "undogmatic,"21;  proof 

of,  40;  various  views  of 53 

Christology,    proved    by  his- 
tory, 11,  12;  Apostolic  view 
of,    43f.;    anti-Gnostic,    101; 
"  Adoption  "     and     "  Pneu- 
matic," 150f.;  of  the  Apolo- 
gists,    166f.;    of      Irenaeus, 
178f.;  of  Melito,  179;  of  Ter- 
tullian,  183;  of  Alex.  School, 
188f.;  of  Athanasius,  338f. 
Church,    and    Christ,    7,    38; 
Confession     of     Christ     its 
foundation,  39;  Constitution 
of,  41;  Apostolic,  43f.;  Wor- 
ship of,  60f. 


380 


INDEX. 


!    ' 


PAOE 

Clemen 818 

Coleridge,  on  Unitarianism. . .     12 
Crord,   ApoBtles',  113f.;    318f.; 
Nlcene,   83;     of     Irenaeus, 
109;  Ilort  on,  304;  necessary, 
IJOOf. 
Cremer 11 

Dkism 12,    15 

DiMinc}' 04 

I)e  Wotte 21 

Doctrine,    History    of,  63,  68, 

69;  beginning  of 70 

Dogma,  in  New  Testament, 
318f.;  in  Apost.  Fathers,  821; 
in  Apologist'^,  326f.;  in  anti- 
Onostics,  329f.;  under  in- 
lliience  of  Origen,  332f.;  at 
Niciia,  338;  Ilarnacls  on, 
349;  Ritsclil  on,  353;  Bois  on, 
855f. 
Dorner,    on  Ritschl,  7,  21,  71; 

(«n  llprraas 151,  269 

Driiscke,  on    Apollinaris,  298, 

299,  302 

Drpyer 258 

En(»elhardt,  on  Justin,     99, 
150,     173,     207,     225,     227,  273 

Faiubairn,  on  Fatherhood  of 

Go.l 140 

Fathers,    Apostolic,    theology 

of,  82f.;    143f.;   198f.;    264f.; 

anti-Gnostic,  94f.,  103f.,  178f.; 

Nicene 297,  388 

Flemming,  on  Justin 104,  210 

Foster,  on    Ilarnack,    74;    on 

Iguatius 149 

Frank,  on  Ritechl,  40,  59;    on 

Luther 377 

Free  Will,  Greek  view  of,  212f. 

Gnosticism,  85f.,  87f.;  effects 

of,  103f 275 

Godet,  on  Jesus 24 


PACK 

Goltz,    von  der,  on  Ignatius, 

87,  99,  100,  130,  142,  145,  148,  155 
Gore,  on  Origcn,  190;  on    di- 
vinity of  Christ,  317,  840;  on 
Hatch,  370;  on  Early  Creed,  374 

Gospels,  Sy noptist 24 

Grau,  fin  Moralisni 40 

Gunkcl,  on  Holy  Spirit.. .  .263,  287 

Gwatkln,  on  Arianisin 297 

299,  840 

Hall,  T.  C 13 

Harnack,  radical  in  views,  13; 
opposed  to  miracles,  14;  on 
New  Test.  24;  on  Jesus,  25; 
on  Baur,  25;  on  facts  of 
Christianity,  31;  on  resurrec- 
tion, 35;  on  Paul,  48;  on 
Christology,  49,  159,  170;  on 
Christianity,  52;  on  prei'xis- 
tence,  5S;  on  history  of  doc- 
trine, 63;  on  Hellenism,  74; 
on  Gnostics,  88r.;  on  ApoHtol. 
tradition,  114,  119;  on  New 
Test,  Canon,  127,  131  f.;  on 
Holy  Spirit  and  Christ,  150f.; 
on  Apologists,  173;  on  death 
of  Christ,  204,  208;  on  Iren- 
aeus,  235;  on  God-Man,  240; 
on  Lord's  Supper,  247;  on 
Apostles'  Creed,  258, 291  f.;  on 
Monarchianism,  276;  on  Ni- 
cene theology,  305;  on  Christ 
in  Creeds,  325;  on  Christ  in 
history,  356;  on  Dogma,  367 f. 
Harris,  R.,  on    Aristides,    223, 

326;  on  Panthera 293 

Hatch,  on  gospel,  45;  on 
Christ,  58;  on  Hellenism, 
104f.,  334;  on  Alogi,  107;  on 
Holy  Spirit,  151;  on  Christol- 
ogy,  175;  on  primitive 
Christianity,  346,  349,  352;  on 

Nicene  theology 869,  871 

Havet 44 


INDEX. 


PAfJK 

natiuB, 
i5, 148,  155 
•n    dl- 
146;  on 
Ureed,  374 

24 

40 

..268,  287 
.  .297 
..299,  840 

13 

8,  13; 
i;  on 

3,  25; 
is  of 
irrec- 
i;  on 
0;  on 
i'xis- 
doc- 
I,  74; 

IHtoI. 

New 
;  on 
50f.; 
eath 
ren- 
240; 
;  on 
■  ;  on 

Ni- 
irist 
It  in 
t67f. 
223, 

...  293 

on 
3m, 

on 
tol- 
tive 
1  on 

169,  371 
...     44 


Heathenism 9   j^q 

Hefele,  on  Church    Councils,' 

808,  344 

Hellenism,    10,    102,  104,  139, 

„ 346,301,  372 

Herbert,  15;  his  summary   of 

religion j^ 

Hering,  on  "double  truth,"  33; 

on  resurrection 54 

Herrmann,      15;    theory      of 
linowledge,  16,  33;  conscious- 
ness of  Jesus,  19;  "  impres- 
sion "  of  Jesus,  20;  on  Zahn, 
,27;  on  historic  facts,  84f.;  on 
worship    of   Christ,   50;    on 
Luther,  70;  on  natural  theol- 
ogy, 72;  on  Apologetics,  162; 
on  resurrection,  352;  on  faith 
and  facts,  350;  on  revelation, 
868;  on  Niccne  theology,  371  • 
on  Luther,  376;  to  Socialists,'  381 
Hilgenfeld,  23,   77;    on  (Jnos- 
ticism,  96;  on  Ititechl,  HI;  on 
Apostolic  tradition,  120;  on 

New  Testament 037 

History,  of    Doctrine,  63,    68,  " 
69;  philosophy  of,  70;  begin- 
ning  of,   79;   Eusebius   on, 

345;  God  in 372 

Holtzmann,  on  liberal  Chris- 
tianity,   12,    44;    on    Fourth 

<^8PeJ 263 

Hope,  Messianic 37 

Hore,  on  Deism 12     13 

Hort,  on  Nicene  Creed 804 

Hume 15,  iq/oq"     55 


387 


PAOE 


Incarnation,  the,  7,  9, 11,  27, 
29,  47,  68,  83,  101,  138,  143, 
145,  169,180,  317 

Jesus,  Consciousness  of  Him- 
self, 22,23,28f.;  real  knowl- 
edge of,  32f.;  and  God,  28; 
and  universe,  34;  and 
Church,  36;  and  history,  85; 


forgives  Bins,   41;    view    of 

Church ;  when  appeared 67 

John,  Gospel  of,  24,   46,   148, 

I'O,  188,  197!  349 

Judai8m,9;  Helleuistic 7(] 

Justification,  li,  los;  Harnack 

on 

Justin,  on  Peter's   Confession, 
42;  theology  of,  166f. 


36 


15 


Kaftan,  16;  against  Herrmann, 
16;  on  Apostolic  teaching,  60; 
on  history  of  doctrine,  63^ 
842;  on  theology,  99;  on 
Apologetics,  162;  on  death  of 
Christ,  247;  on  Holy  Spirit, 
256;  on  Nicene  Creed,  849; 
on  New  Dogma 3(57 

Kant 

Kattenbu8ch,on  Kitschl's  meth- 
od, 18,  23;  on  Nicene  Creed, 
306;  on  tirst  Creed 324,  331 

Keim 55 

Kruger,  on  History  of  Doc- 
trine, 84;  on  Christian  Litera- 
ture, 95;  on  Aristo,  171; 
on  Monarchians,  187;  on 
"arnack 350,  375 

Kunze,  on  Irenaeus,  95,  98, 
281;  on  Marcus  Eremita,  329, 
333,  363 

LiGnTFOOT,  on  Apost.  Church, 
81;  on  Apost.  Fathers,  146, 

203;  on  Eusebius 345 

Link,  on  Hermas 15 j 

LipsiuB,  against  liitschl,  16,  19, 
347;  on  Jesus,  26;  on  Gnos- 

tif^'sm 89,    97 

Literature,  Christian 77 

Lobsteiu,    on   Luther,  365;  on 

Lord's  Supper 247 

Logos,  Doctrine  of,  83, 85, 167f.; 
relation  to  Hellenism,  172f 
181,  223L 


388 


INDEX. 


m 


I 


F\v!'! 


*    ; 


tj- 


PACK 

LoofB,  on  Ilarnack,  60,  52,  2S9, 
840;  oo  Jewiuli  Cbriatianity, 
120;  on  teachings  of  John, 
101;  on  ApologlHts,  175;  un 
MouarchimiH,  187;  on  Iren- 
ao>i8,  231;  on  early  Soteriol- 
o<ry  218;  on  divinity  of 
ChriHt 347 

Loril'tf  Supper,  2101'. 

Lotze 10 

lAidormann,  on  Hatch 840,  847 

Luther,  1'.,  on  UitBchl's  theol- 
ogy  21,810,  855 

Luther,  on  JuBtilication,  11; 
and  Nlceno  theology 875 

Luttorbeck 9 

M.VHTKN8KN,  on    Bupematural, 

80;  ou  Christology 154 

Matter,  on  GuosticiBm 108,  184 

McGillert,  on  history  of  doc- 
trine,   Ol>;    on     New     TeBt. 

Canon 182 

MesHiunic  lio|)e 87 

Metaj)hy8ic8 27 

MirucleB 14,  85,    57 

Moeller,  ou  Incarnation 218 

Monarchiauism,  of  Uitschl 
School,  80;  in  early  Church, 
184;  character  of,  187,  278; 
an<i    New    Testament,    188; 

effects  of 275,  278,  284 

Mouusticism 249 

Mouist     Theologians,    21;    on 

Jesus 27 

Montanism 200,  275,  278,  284 

Moralism,  40;  Ritschl  on,  80; 
Plleiderer  on,  200;  sources  of, 
229;  of   IrenaeuB,  238;  and 

Sacraments 249 

Miiller,  on  Gnostics 123,  324 

Miinchmeyer,     on      Christian 

facts 20 

MyBticism,  of  Ritschl  school, 
28,  185;  true,  89;  of  Irenaeus,  233 


PAOR 

New  Tkhtamknt,  aa  Canon, 
128f.;  andOmmticH,  125;anti- 
QnoBtic  FutherB  and,  185; 
Apostolic,  124f. 

NIcica,  Councilor,  888f. 

Nlppold,  on  Hitachi,  16,  17, 
810,  847,  882;  on  llellcniza- 
tion 376 

Nit/sch,  on  Holy  Si)irit,  257, 
271,  289,  808;  a  Monarchian, 

258,  208,  286 

Ntisgen,  on  Jesus,  29,  89;  on 
ApoHtles,  01,    08;    on    Holy 

Spirit 269 

Norton 68,    73 

Oitn,  24;  on  Jesus,  39;  on 
Ritschl 40 

Overbeck,  on  Kusebius,  882; 
on  development  of  doctrine,  842 

PATnicK,  on  Orisren i 

rtleidoror  against  liitschl,  16, 
17,  44,  815;  Christo-cen- 
tric  intheojogy,  28;  on  Jesus, 
25,20;  follows  Strauss,  27;  on 
incarnation,  27;  on  Trinity, 
81;  on  Christology,  48,  62;  on 
Sermon  on  Mount,  45;  on 
Paul,  50,  59,  117;  on  Hellen- 
ism, 75;  ou  Gnosticism,   100; 

on  Moralism 200 

Pressensf^ 102,  108,  187 

Protestantenverein 10,  804,  881 

REDEMrTiON,  Apologists'  view 
of,  219f.;  Origen  on,  237; 
Methodius  on,  289;  Athana- 
sius  on,  240f.;  result  of  de- 
fective view  of 250 

Renan,  14,  22,  52;  on  Paul,  54, 
55,71;  on  Early  Catholicism  178 

Resch 198,  318,  320 

Resurrection,  the,  54f. 

Reuss,  on  Christ 49 


;iJf 


INDKX. 


aso 


PAflR 

Hitarhl,  on  ChriHt'a  Kingdom, 
7;  AiiPitliitcB  of,  l;i;  theory  of 
kuowlcd^e,  10;  on  Christ,  18; 
on  Old  Tostiinient,  18;  N»- 
ture,  18;  origin  of  hiu  tiieol- 
ogy,  23;  teaclilnf?  of  .Ioaui»,  !i<(; 
presiippositiona  of,  27;  thccd- 
Ojiy  of,  40;  on  divinity  of 
Christ,  49;  on  Christianity, 
53,  50;  on  Moralinin,  80;  on 
Ood,  02,  140;  on  theolojry  of 
and  GnoKtlcinm,  111;  on 
ApoHt.  Fathers,  202,  204f.; 
on  two  kindH  of  tliooloj^'y, 
222;  on  .lustin,  220;  on  legal- 
iuni,  230;  a  Socinian,  208; 
tnalcot)  Clirist  centrul,  315; 
good  HtimulUH  from 315 

Sacra  MENTSjpervernlon  of  24r)f, 

Handay,  on  New  Test.  Canon, 

127,  132;  on  Logos  in  Justin, 

16!»,  345,  3tJ0 

Schenl<e],  on  Chnst 7,    26 

Schlci   rmachcr 23 

Schniid,  on  Apologists,  210;  on 

Irenaeus 281 

Schmidt,  oi  Gnosticism 92 

ScUoen,  on    [Utsclil's  theology, 

14,    59 

Schiirer,  on  Synagogue  or- 
ganization,   70;    on    Fourth 

Gospel 263 

Schultz,  on  Christ,  10,  11,  21; 
on  salvation,    235;  on  Holy 

Spirit 258 

Seeberg,  83;  on  Ilerraas,  151; 
on  Gnostics,  161;  on  Aria- 
tides,  171,  173;  on  Soteriol- 
ogy,  214;  on  legalism,  221; 
on  Irenaeus,  234;  on  history 
(-f  doctrine,  855;  on  dogmas,  378 

Sell,  on  New  Testament 24 

Sidgwiclj,  on  Ethics 14 

Sin,  Greek  view  of,  209f  ;  Rit- 
Bchl's  view  of .200,  368 


l-AOR 

Slater,    on    Jewish     Churcii, 

47,  119 

Sohm,  on    Gnosticism,  00;  on 

Karly  Gospel,  117;  >u  "Adop- 

tlonhits,"  152;  on  <Jrigon,  100; 

on  Nlccno  theoloijry 342 

Spirit,  Holy,  150;  In  the  Api.l- 

ogUts,  171;  doctrine  of,  25Bf. 
Stade,  on    Israel,  72;  on    the 

new  in  Christianity 808 

StrauHH,  12,  22;  on    Jesus,  20; 

on  inythH,  27;  on  Christ,  31; 

on  Sy nopt  ists 46 

Supper,  LordV,  246 f. 

Swete,  on    Holy     Spirit,    206, 

274,  270,  277,  279,  285,   300,  307 

Telkolooy,  Kantian 7,  358 

Theology,  of  Apost.  Fath- 
ers, 82  f.;  Niceue,  centors 
in  Christ,  10,  34;  defense  of, 
304f.,  3(10f.;  of  UltBchl,18,  16, 
18,  20,  23,  27,  30,  40,  212,  315, 

851,  367 

Thomaslus,  on  divinity  of 
Christ,  138,  151 ;  on  Arianism, 
101;  on   Lord's  Supper,  240; 

on  Nicene  thef)logy 302 

Tradition,  Apostolic,  lllf. 

Traub,  against  Ilitschl 17 

Trinity,  the,  83,  143,  115,  150, 
171,  257,  209,  300f. 

Virgin  Mary,  291,  conceived 
by  the  Holy  Ghost,  291f. 

Watkins,  on  Basilides 89 

Weber 245,  261 

V/eizeilcker,  54;  on  Christol- 
ogy,  153,  208;  on  Lord's 
Supper,  247;  on  theology,  353 
Wendt,  on  Christ,  10;  on 
Peter's  Confession,  39;  on 
Harnack,48;  on  resurrection, 
54;  on  history  of  doctrine, 
68;  on  teaching  of  Jesus 327 


390 


INDEX. 


4' 


PACK 

Werner,  on  Monarcbianiem, 
185;  on  IrenaeuB,  211,  232, 
233f. 

Werthurtheil,     17,   83,     356,    358 

Zahn,  on  New  Testament,  24; 
on  worship  of  Christ,  32,  51, 
176;  on  Apostles,  68; on  Poly- 
carp,   85;   03   historic   con- 


PAOE 

tinuity,  106, 118;  on  Apostolic 
tradition^  121,  124,  129,  131; 
reply  to  Hamack,  188;  on 
Ignatius,  204;  on  Lord's 
Supper,  247;  on  supernatural,  296 
Ziickler,  on  Trinity,  257,  285, 
819;  on  Hermas,  265;  on 
Virgin  birth,  291;  on  Holy 
Spirit , 293,296 


PAGE 

Apostolic 

139,  131; 

133;  on 
1  Lord's 
srnatural,  206 

257,  285, 

265;    on 

on  Holy 
293,296 


N 


